Report of the Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea (WGMIXFISH)

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Report of the Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea (WGMIXFISH)"

Transcription

1 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ICES CM 2012/ACOM:22 Report of the Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea (WGMIXFISH) May 2012 ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen

2 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) Telefax (+45) info@ices.dk Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES Report of the Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea (WGMIXFISH, May 2012, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2012/ACOM: pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the General Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

3 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 i Contents Executive summary Introduction Background Effort limitations Stock-based management plans Definitions Terms of Reference Software Fcube Input data and recent trends Stocks Data Trends and advice Software Fleets and métiers Catch and effort Data Definitions of fleets and métiers Trends Mixed fisheries forecasts Description of scenarios Baseline Runs Mixed fisheries runs Results of Fcube runs Baseline run Mixed fisheries analyses Future Developments Future developments for WGMIXFISH MIXFISH methodology meeting Candidate future scenarios Towards mixed-fishery management plans Conclusions and Recommendations References Annex 1: List of participants Annex 2: Specification of the ICES data call Aggregations... 66

4 ii ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Supporting Documentation and work to be undertaken after the data upload Conversions to InterCatch Format Annex Annex Annex 3: Data issues for specific nations Annex 4: Stock-based management plans Annex 5: Recommendations Annex 6: Proposed ToR for 2013 WGMIXFISH Meeting Annex 7: Technical Minutes of the Mixed-fisheries Advice Review Group WGMIXFISH report Software Input data and recent trends Mixed fisheries forecasts... 90

5 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Executive summary The ICES Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea [WGMIX- FISH] (Chair: Steven Holmes (UK)) met at ICES HQ, May 2012 to apply mixed fisheries forecasts to the draft North Sea single species advice formed by WGNSSK The meeting has produced a North Sea Mixed Fisheries Advice sheet and included lines showing mixed fisheries scenario outcomes in the single species advice sheets (for those stocks considered) for consideration by the ACOM advice drafting group. The North Sea Mixed Fisheries Annex is unchanged from last year and is a separate document. The mixed fisheries runs followed the approach used by ICES; management plan where it exists and MSY framework otherwise. The species considered here as part of the demersal mixed fisheries of the North Sea are cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice, sole and Nephrops norvegicus. All of these are now subject to multi-annual management plans apart from Nephrops. Five scenarios were considered 1 ) max: The underlying assumption was that fishing stops when all quota species are fully utilised with respect to the upper limit corresponding to single stock exploitation boundary. 2 ) min: The underlying assumption was that fishing stops when the catch for the first quota species meets the upper limit corresponding to single stock exploitation boundary. 3 ) cod: The underlying assumption was that all fleets set their effort at the level corresponding to their cod quota share, regardless of other stocks. 4 ) sq_e: The effort was set as equal to the effort in the most recently recorded year for which there are landings and discard data. 5 ) Ef_Mgt: The effort in métiers that used gear controlled by the EU effort management regime had effort adjusted according to the regime. The max and min scenarios were included to bracket the space of potential catch and SSB outcomes but for most fleets are considered unrealistic scenarios. Of the remaining scenarios none was picked as a preferred scenario. As a cross check, the landings by national fleets were summed over nation for each scenario, and the share by country was compared with the initial values input to the model. In general the results indicate that the approach used does not lead to violation of the underlying hypothesis of relative stability in the TAC sharing (quotas) across nations. Only minor deviations are observed across scenarios, except for the Ef_Mgt scenario. Here the fact the majority of Scottish vessels come under the scope of the EU effort management regime whereas Norwegian vessels are unaffected by the same regime leads to a shift of landings share from the former to the latter under the assumptions of the model. Data for this WG was requested as part of a joint WGNSSK-WGMIXFISH data call issued formally under the EU DCF regulations. This has allowed a greater consistency between catch totals supplied to WGMIXFISH and WGNSSK. Problems in data supply were still encountered, however, caused primarily by the level of fleet disaggregation best suited to the mixed fisheries projections being incompatible with national sampling schemes (and the need to keep the number of fleet-metier combinations used in the ICES database - InterCatch - to a manageable number).

6 2 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Introduction 1.1 Background The Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea [WGMIXFISH] (Chair: Steven Holmes (UK)) met at ICES HQ, May 2012 to apply mixed fisheries forecasts to the North Sea single species advice. In previous years the WG met in August and the single species advice was as agreed by ACOM. In 2012 WGMIXFISH advice is to be considered by ADGNS as for the single species advice and so the WG can only consider preliminary advice. The output from this group is the first mixed fisheries advice to be reviewed and released in conjunction with the single species advice for the North Sea. It applies the methodology developed by the ICES Workshop on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea [WKMIXFISH] (ICES 2009a) and Ad hoc Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea [AGMIXNS] (ICES 2009b) which met in The current interest in fleet- and fishery-based approaches has its origins around 2002, when the conflicting states of the various demersal stocks in the North Sea made the limitations of the traditional, single-species approach to advice particularly apparent. The history of the adoption and development of the Fcube approach (after Fleet and Fishery Forecast) used by this WG is detailed in ICES (2009a) The mixed fishery advice will be based on the CFP TAC regime and is consistent with relative stability. The circumstances of 2002 have also lead to the introduction of effort restrictions alongside TACs as a management measure within EU fisheries and there has been an increasing use of single-species multi-annual management plans, partly in relation to cod recovery, but also more generally. These developments are of key importance for the general approach to mixed-fisheries advice, which must build on the existing legal and management system. The species considered here as part of the demersal mixed fisheries of the North Sea are cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice, sole and Nephrops norvegicus. All of these are now subject to multi-annual management plans apart from Nephrops. 1.2 Effort limitations For vessels registered in EU member states, effort restrictions in terms of days at sea were introduced in Annex XVII of Council Regulation 2341/2002 and amended by Council Regulation 671/2003 of 10 April The days at sea allowances have been revised by subsequent Council Regulations and the documents listing these days at sea limitations are given in Table In 2008 the system was radically redesigned. For 2009 effort limits were changed to be on the basis of kwdays effort pots assigned per nation per fleet effort category. The baselines assigned in 2009 were based on track record per fleet effort category averaged over or depending on national preference. The latest effort allocations available by nation and gear are given in Appendix 1 of Annex IIa of Council Regulations (EU) 43/2012 and (EU) 44/2012. Member states are permitted slightly larger allocations of effort in cases where that effort involves low cod catches, e.g. through the implementation of more selective gears or cod avoidance measures. Full details are given in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008 and table summarises effort reductions imposed in the current year. In relation to this, some member states have implemented real-time closure schemes. The closures ap-

7 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT ply to areas with high cod catch rates with the intention that closing these will lead to an overall reduction in the catchability of cod (Holmes et al, 2011). 1.3 Stock-based management plans The species considered here as part of the demersal mixed fisheries of the North Sea were cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice, sole and Nephrops norvegicus. All of these were subject to multi-annual management plans apart from Nephrops. These plans all consist of harvest rules to derive annual TACs depending on the state of the stock relative to biomass reference points and target fishing mortality. The harvest rules also impose constraints on the annual percentage change in TAC. These plans have been discussed, evaluated and adopted on a stock-by-stock basis, involving different timing, procedures, stakeholders and scientists, and as such have never been evaluated in an integrated approach. The full details and references of these plans are not always easy to find. The most important points of these plans are therefore reproduced in Annex Definitions Two basic concepts are of primary importance when dealing with mixed-fisheries, the Fleet (or fleet segment), and the Métier. Their definition has evolved with time, but the most recent official definitions are those from the CEC s Data Collection Framework (DCF, Reg. (EC) No 949/2008 and Commission Decision 2010/93/UE), which we adopt here: A Fleet segment is a group of vessels with the same length class and predominant fishing gear during the year. Vessels may have different fishing activities during the reference period, but might be classified in only one fleet segment. A Métier is a group of fishing operations targeting a similar (assemblage of) species, using similar gear, during the same period of the year and/or within the same area and which are characterized by a similar exploitation pattern. In 2012 WGMIXFISH requested data according to aggregations based on the definitions of the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF). The data call allowed merging across DCF metiers (see section 3.2 and Annex 2) and as such national data entries were sometimes not by métier in the strict sense. Merging of metiers to reduce to a manageable number going forwards in the forecasts further leads to the formation of combined or supra-metiers. 1.5 Terms of Reference The terms of reference for WGMIXFISH were as follows 2011/2/ACOM24 The Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea (WGMIXFISH), chaired by Steven Holmes, UK, will meet at ICES Headquarters, May and August 2012 to: May, a ) Carry out mixed demersal fisheries projections for the North Sea taking into account the single species advice for cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice, sole and Nephrops norvegicus that is produced by WGNSSK in April 2012, and the management measures in place for 2013;

8 4 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 b ) Update the mixed fisheries annex for the North Sea; c ) Produce a draft mixed-fisheries section for the ICES advisory report 2012 that includes a dissemination of the fleet and fisheries data and forecasts ; August, d ) Compile and review available fleet and fisheries data for fisheries West of Scotland; e ) Where viable carry out mixed fisheries forecasts for fisheries West of Scotland taking into account the advice produced by WGCSE 2012 and the management measures currently in place for 2012; f ) Produce a mixed fisheries annex for the west of Scotland region; g ) Produce a draft mixed-fisheries section for the ICES advisory report 2012 that includes a dissemination of the fleet and fisheries data and forecasts ; For the North Sea and West of Scotland regions investigate the possibility of producing mixed fisheries forecasts based on the scenario of all stocks fished at FMSY in In fulfilling its terms of reference above WGMIXFISH was also requested to respond to the following joint EU-Norway request to the fullest extent possible. Joint EU-Norway Request to ICES on mixed fisheries advice ICES is requested to provide in 2012, alongside its recurrent advice for single stocks, mixed-fisheries TAC advice for stocks in the North Sea and the Skagerrak. The mixed fisheries advice should reflect the target level of fishing mortalities as set in current management plans, and to the extent possible be consistent with the MSY framework, taking account of plausible ranges in the choice of MSY targets. The advice should also consider eventual adjustments to the MSY framework as a consequence of a mixed fisheries approach. 2 Software All analyses were conducted using the FLR framework (Kell et al. (2007); running with R (R Development Core Team, 2008). All forecasts were projected using the same fwd() function in the Flash Package. The Fcube method is developed as a stand-alone script using FLR objects as inputs and outputs. The Fcube model has been presented and described in Ulrich et al. (2008; 2011). Brief details are presented below and a summary of the methodology is incorporated in the Mixed Fisheries Annex: Fcube The basis of the model is to estimate the potential future levels of effort by a fleet corresponding to the fishing opportunities (TACs by stock and/or effort allocations by fleet) available to that fleet, based on fleet effort distribution and catchability by métier. This level of effort was used to estimate landings and catches by fleet and stock, using standard forecasting procedures.

9 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT In 2012, single-species ICES advice was given according to a single preferred option; management plan if implemented, MSY framework otherwise. The basis for each single stock advice was retained in the current mixed-fisheries framework. A complicating factor when incorporating Nephrops is the fact that the species is found in a number of distinct areas or functional units (FU), only some of which receive an abundance estimate (necessary to calculate a catchability). This WG followed the approach adopted by ICES (2009b) which is to perform the normal Fcube prediction for those FUs with absolute abundance estimates, then to calculate a ratio (R) of the yields to the ICES advice for the same FUs. For those FUs without absolute abundance estimates, landings resulting from the Fcube run were simply taken to be the most recently recorded landings multiplied by the same ratio R. To do this, landings for each métier had to be apportioned across the FUs. This was facilitated by the supply of effort and catch data by FU. Prior to 2009, precursors to WGMIXFISH compiled age-disaggregated data over a large number of categories. Analyses in 2008 highlighted that the age composition of landings showed distinct differences to that supplied to the single species stock assessment working group (WGNSSK) and therefore WGMIXFISH runs projections on the basis of total landings and discards alone. From 2012 age distribution by métier and area is available to WGNSSK in InterCatch and it is ultimately the aim of WGMIXFISH to include age specific data in the projections. As in previous years, the following five options (or scenarios) were explored: 1 ) max: The underlying assumption was that fishing stops when all quota species are fully utilised with respect to the upper limit corresponding to single stock exploitation boundary. 2 ) min: The underlying assumption was that fishing stops when the catch for the first quota species meets the upper limit corresponding to single stock exploitation boundary. 3 ) cod: The underlying assumption was that all fleets set their effort at the level corresponding to their cod quota share, regardless of other stocks. 4 ) sq_e: The effort was set as equal to the effort in the most recently recorded year for which there are landings and discard data. 5 ) Ef_Mgt: The effort in métiers that used gear controlled by the EU effort management regime had effort adjusted according to the regime. In 2012, that implies an 18.2% effort reduction in TR1 and TR2 gear categories compared to 2011, and another 22.2% reduction in 2013 compared to In addition, some effort reductions in the BT2 category are implemented in 2012 on the basis of the EU flatfish management plan, on a country-specific magnitude of up to 10% (7.17% for Belgium, 5.76% for Denmark, 2.24 % for France, 9.85% for Germany, 9.57% for the Netherlands and 8.85% for the UK, source Council Reg. 44/2012).

10 6 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Input data and recent trends 3.1 Stocks Data The assessment data for the different stocks were taken from ICES WGNSSK (2012). For, plaice, saithe, and sole, no modifications were needed to incorporate the assessment and forecast inputs into the mixed fisheries routine. For whiting, the industrial bycatch component was included in the landings, whereas it is dealt with separately in the single-stock forecast. The same applied for haddock, for which the industrial bycatch is now extremely low. The single species haddock forecast also includes some non-standard procedures for projecting mean weight and mean selectivity, and this was accounted for as far as possible in the current mixed-fisheries forecast. The cod assessment is performed using the state-space SAM model. This makes use of stochastic projections which are hard to replicate using the deterministic Fcube software. The assessment estimates unallocated removals which are considered as a category on their own, such that raising of the fleet data is not required. Nephrops stocks were incorporated in the evaluation by functional unit. For the Nephrops stocks in FU 5, FU6, FU7, FU8, FU9, FU32, FU33 and Nephrops from areas outside the functional units, the ICES advices were taken for the Fmsy approach. The functional units with separate stock indices from underwater surveys (FU6, FU7, FU8 and FU9) were treated as separate Nephrops identities in the projections whereas the four other functional units (FU 5, 10, 32 and 33) and catches outside of the functional units in the North Sea were omitted in the projections. The final data set extracted from InterCatch for use by WGNSSK includes cases where discards have been assigned to categories uploaded with only landings data. The data provided to WGMIXFISH, disaggregated by vessel length category and provided in csv files, contains no such assignments. InterCatch data is quarterly and in some cases a metier had raised discard data for some quarters but not others. This lead to different annual discard totals between InterCatch and csv file data. To make the data for Fcube compatible with the InterCatch output the following adjustment was made d * = Dl L Where d* is the revised discard value for the metier used by Fcube, l is the weight of landings for the metier used by Fcube and L and D are the weight of landings and discards entered for the (vessel length aggregated) metier in InterCatch Trends and advice This advice is drafted by the WGNSSK-2012 before considerations by ACOM. Recent trends are described on a stock-by-stock basis in ICES (2012), and latest advice by stock is available on the ICES website. In order to give a global overview of all North Sea demersal stocks at one time, this information is collected directly below. It should be noted that although there is only one advice, additional management considerations are also listed. Table lists the final advised TACs for 2013 and expected SSBs in 2014.

11 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Cod in IIIa IV VIId Trends There has been a gradual improvement in the status of the stock over the last few years. SSB has increased from the historical low in 2006, but remains just below Blim. Fishing mortality declined from 2000 and is now below Fpa, but is estimated to be well above FMSY. Recruitment since 2000 has been poor. Although discards are still high, there has been a decreasing trend since Advice ICES advises on the basis of the EU Norway management plan that landings in 2012 should be no more than t. Additional management considerations 1 ) The EU Norway agreement management plan as updated in December 2008 aims to be consistent with the precautionary approach and is intended to provide for sustainable fisheries and high yield leading to a target fishing mortality of 0.4. This agreement management plan will be re-considered during The EU has adopted a long-term plan for this stock with the same aims (Council Regulation (EC) 1342/2008). In addition to the EU Norway agreement the EU plan also includes effort restrictions, reducing kw-days available to community vessels in the main metiers catching cod in direct proportion to reductions in fishing mortality until the long-term phase of the plan is reached, for which the target F is 0.4 if SSB is above Bpa. This implies a reduction in effort ceilings of 18.2% in In both plans fishing mortality should be reduced to levels corresponding to 75% of F2008 in 2009 and 65% of F2008 in Until the long-term phase of the management plans has been reached, further annual reductions of 10% must be applied which lead to an F in 2013 equal to 35% of F2008. This would lead to a TAC reduction outside the limits of the 20% TAC constraint, necessitating the application of the TAC constraint. According to these rules, landings should be t in total for Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa West and VIId in ) While ICES considers that a reduction in fishing mortality took place, the intermediate year F assumption from the management plan is considered to be over-optimistic (Simmonds and Kraak, 2011). An alternative assumption based on the continuation of the F trend from for the F in 2012 is made. Following the ICES MSY framework implies fishing mortality to be reduced to 0.10 (lower than FMSY because SSB 2013 < MSY Btrigger), resulting in landings of less than t in This is expected to lead to an SSB of t in To follow the transition scheme towards the ICES MSY framework the fishing mortality must be reduced to (0.4*0.58) + (0.6*0.10) = 0.29, which is lower than Fpa. This results in landings of less than t in 2013, which is expected to lead to an SSB of t in ) Following the precautionary approach, even a zero catch in 2012 is not expected to result in SSB reaching Bpa in 2013.

12 8 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Haddock in IIIa IV Trends Fishing mortality has been below Fpa and around Fmsy and SSB has been above MSY Btrigger since Recruitment is characterized by occasional large year-classes, the last of which was the strong 1999 year class. Apart from the 2005 and 2009 year classes which are about average, recent recruitment has been poor. Advice ICES advises on the basis of the EU-Norway management plan that landings in 2013 should be t. Additional management considerations 1 ) In 2008 the EU and Norway agreed a revised management plan for this stock, which states that every effort will be made to maintain a minimum level of SSB greater than t (Blim). Furthermore, fishing was restricted on the basis of a TAC consistent with a fishing mortality rate of no more than 0.30 for appropriate age groups, along with a limitation on interannual TAC variability of ±15%. Following a minor revision in 2008, interannual quota flexibility ( banking and borrowing ) of up to ±10% is permitted (although this facility has not yet been used). The stipulations of the management plan have been adhered to by the EU and Norway since its implementation in January Following the management plan implies a TAC of t in 2013 which is a TAC increase of 15% and which is expected to lead to an F decrease of 8%. 2 ) Following the ICES MSY framework implies fishing mortality to be increased to 0.3, resulting in human consumption landings of less than t in This would be expected to lead to an SSB of t in ) Following the precautionary approach, fishing mortality in 2013 should be no more than Fpa corresponding to human consumption landings of less than t in This is expected to keep SSB just above Bpa in Plaice in IV Trends The stock is well within precautionary boundaries, and has reached its highest levels in recorded history. Recruitment has been slightly above the long-term average from 2007 onwards. Advice ICES advises on the basis of the first stage of the EU management plan (Council Regulation No. 676/2007) that landings in 2013 should be no more than t. ICES notes that the current advice is deemed to be on the basis of transitional arrangements until an evaluation of the plan (as stipulated in article 5 of the EC regulation) has been concluded. Additional management considerations 1 ) Following the EU multiannual plan would imply a TAC of t (F=0.27) in 2013, which is a 15% reduction in comparison to 2012, constrained by the 15% TAC change bounds of the plan. This is expected to lead to an SSB of t in ICES has evaluated this management plan and considers it to be precautionary. Both the North Sea plaice and sole stocks have been within safe

13 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT biological limits in the last two years. According to the management plan (Article 3.2), this signals the end of stage one. Application of the plan is on the basis of transitional arrangements until an evaluation of the plan (as stipulated in article 5 of the EC regulation) has been concluded. See section Multiannual plan under Additional considerations for additional information on the EU management plan. 2 ) Following the ICES MSY framework implies fishing mortality to be increased to 0.25, resulting in landings of t in This is expected to lead to an SSB of t in Given that the current (2011) estimate of fishing mortality is only slightly below FMSY there is no need to follow a transition scheme towards this reference value. 3 ) Following the precautionary approach, the fishing mortality in 2013 should be no more than Fpa (0.6) corresponding to landings of less than t in This is expected to keep SSB above Bpa in Sole in IV Trends SSB has fluctuated around the precautionary reference points for the last decade and is estimated to be at Bpa in Fishing mortality has shown a declining trend since 1995 and is estimated to be below Fpa since Advice ICES advises on the basis of the EU management plan (Council Regulation No. 676/2007) that landings in 2013 should be no more than t. ICES notes that the current advice is deemed to be on the basis of transitional arrangements until an evaluation of the plan (as stipulated in article 5 of the EC regulation) has been concluded. Additional management considerations 1 ) Following the EU multiannual plan would imply a 10% reduction of F to 0.27, resulting in a TAC of t in 2013 (an exact 15% reduction in comparison to 2012, while unconstrained by the 15% TAC change bounds of the plan) and implying a 10% reduction in fishing effort. This is expected to lead to an SSB of t in ICES has evaluated this management plan and considers it to be precautionary. Both the North Sea plaice and sole stocks have been within safe biological limits in the last two years. According to the management plan (Article 3.2), this signals the end of stage one. Application of the plan is on the basis of transitional arrangements until an evaluation of the plan has been conducted (as stipulated in article 5 of the EC regulation) 2 ) Following the ICES MSY framework implies fishing mortality to be reduced to 0.22 (FMSY, as SSB 2012 > MSY Btrigger), resulting in landings of less than t in This is expected to lead to an SSB of t in Following the transition scheme towards the ICES MSY framework implies fishing mortality to be reduced to 0.27 ((0.36 *0.4) + (0.22 *0.6)), which will result in landings of less than t in This is expected to lead to an SSB of t in 2014.

14 10 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT ) The precautionary Fpa for North Sea sole is 0.4. This would lead to landings of t in 2013 (a 20% increase in TAC) and an SSB of t in Saithe in IIIa IV VI Trends The status of the stock has deteriorated in the last few years. Recruitment in 2006, 2008, and 2009 was among the lowest on record. SSB was above Bpa during but has declined since 2005 towards Bpa. Fishing mortality has fluctuated around Fmsy since Advice ICES advises on the basis of the EU Norway management plan that landings in 2012 should be no more than t for the whole assessment area. Additional management considerations 1 ) The EU Norway agreement management plan does not clearly state whether the SSB in the intermediate year or the SSB in the beginning or end of the TAC year should be used to determine the status of the stock. ICES interprets this as being the SSB in the beginning of the intermediate year (2012). Since SSB in the beginning of 2012 ( t) is above Bpa ( t, and an F=0.3 will give a larger change than 15 %, 5 of the harvest control rule applies, resulting in a TAC of t and an SSB in 2014 of t. 2 ) Following the ICES MSY framework implies a fishing mortality of FMSY = 0.3. This would result in landings less than t in 2013 and an SSB in 2014 of t. 3 ) Fishing at Fpa = 0.4 results in landings of less than t in 2013 and a SSB of t in Whiting in IV VIId Trends SSB in 2011 is slightly lower than in 2010, but remains around the long-term average. Fishing mortality has been stable with minor fluctuations since Recruitment was low between 2003 and 2007, with above-average recruitments estimated in 2008 and Whiting is no longer considered to be in a period of impaired recruitment. Advice ICES advises on the basis of precautionary considerations that landings should be no more than t (human consumption for the combined area) in Additional management considerations 1 ) The response to the Joint EU Norway request on the management of whiting in Subarea IV (North Sea) and Division VIId (Eastern Channel) from ICES in September 2010 stated that maintaining fishing mortality at its current level of 0.3 would be consistent with long-term stability if recruitment is not poor (ICES, 2010). Consequently the EU and Norway have agreed to interim management of whiting at this level of total fishing mortality for 2011, conditional on a ±15% TAC constraint.

15 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Following the existing management plan in 2013 implies a TAC of , which corresponds to a 15% increase in TAC and a fishing-mortality decrease of 17%. The considerable revisions in this year s assessment, caused by new estimates of natural mortality mean the target F is no longer considered applicable and the management target needs reevaluation. As an interim measure, it would be appropriate to scale the target F in the plan (0.3) according to the proportional change in F between the old and new assessment. The level of F of the whole time series was revised downwards by around 25% between the 2011 and 2012 assessments, which would generate a target F of (0.75 * 0.3). Following this approach in 2013 with a target fishing mortality of would lead to human consumption landings of no more than t in the North Sea and in Division VIId. 2 ) There are no reference points to enable MSY advice. 3 ) There are no reference points to enable precautionary advice Nephrops in Botney Gut (FU 5) Trends The state of the stock is unknown but lpue is fluctuating without trend indicating a stable stock status. A new scheme has been developed for Nephrops stocks without accepted analytical assessments. This uses the known area of Nephrops habitat and the range of densities observed on this (or neighboring) grounds to indicate if historical landings are likely to represent sustainable harvest rates or not. Preliminary TV surveys for this ground indicate a stock density of 0.7 Nephrops per m2 although this is subject to considerable uncertainty. Historical average (10 year) landings appear to be sustainable and robust to uncertainty in the estimated stock density. Advice The 2010 advice for this Nephrops stock is biennial and valid for 2013 and 2014 (see ICES 2010). In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advises that landings of 1000t should be sustainable for this stock. To protect the stock in this functional unit, management should be implemented at the functional unit level. Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this Functional Unit. 2 ) The In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advises that landings of 1000t should be sustainable for this stock. 3 ) There is currently no advice given following the precautionary approach for this Functional Unit Nephrops in Farn Deeps (FU 6) Trends The UWTV survey indicates that the stock status has declined since 2005 and has been rebuilding to just below MSY Btrigger since Changes in survey methodology

16 12 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 in 2007 make exact comparisons with the preceding series difficult but the general trend is considered reliable. Advice ICES advises on the basis of the MSY transition that landings in 2013 should be no more than 1400 t. To protect the stock in this functional unit (FU), management should be implemented at the functional unit level. Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this Functional Unit. 2 ) Following the ICES MSY framework implies a harvest rate of 8%, resulting in landings of 1300 t in Following the transition scheme towards the ICES MSY framework implies fishing mortality to be reduced to (0.4*F *FMSY) = 8.8% (biomass is just below MSY Btrigger, so no additional reductions are relevant), corresponding to landings of no more than 1400 t in ) There is currently no advice given following the precautionary approach for this Functional Unit Nephrops Fladen Ground (FU 7) Trends The stock has declined in the last 3 years but remains above MSY Btrigger. The harvest rate has fluctuated around 8% in recent years, this is below FMSY Advice ICES advises on the basis of the MSY approach that landings in should be no more than t. To protect the stock in this functional unit (FU), management should be implemented at the functional unit level. Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this Functional Unit. 2 ) Following the ICES MSY framework implies a harvest rate lower than 10.3%, corresponding to landings of less than t in ) There is currently no advice given following the precautionary approach for this Functional Unit Nephrops in Firth of Forth (FU 8) Trends The stock remains at a high level, above MSY Btrigger. The harvest rate remains above FMSY. Advice ICES advises on the basis of the transition to the MSY approach that landings in 2013 should be no more than 1400 t.

17 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT To protect the stock in this functional unit (FU), management should be implemented at the functional unit level. Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this Functional Unit. 2 ) To follow the ICES MSY framework the harvest rate should be reduced to 16.3%, corresponding to maximum landings of 1350 t in To follow the transition scheme towards the ICES MSY framework the harvest rate should be reduced to 17.1% (0.4* F * FMSY), corresponding to landings of no more than 1400 t in 2013 (where F2010 is the observed harvest rate in 2010 (18.4%)). 3 ) There is currently no advice given following the precautionary approach for this Functional Unit Nephrops in Moray Firth (FU 9) Trends The stock remains above MSY Btrigger. The harvest rate was just below FMSY in 2010 but increased in Advice ICES advises on the basis of the MSY approach that landings in 2013 should be no more than 950 t. To protect the stock in this functional unit (FU), management should be implemented at the functional unit level. Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this Functional Unit 2 ) Following the ICES MSY framework implies the harvest rate should be less than 11.8%, resulting in landings of less than 950 t in ) There is currently no advice given following the precautionary approach for this Functional Unit Nephrops in Noup (FU 10) Trends The state of the stock is not fully known. Based on guideline evaluation the stock appears to be exploited close to 10% harvest rate on the basis of preliminary TV density estimates of 0.2m2. Advice The 2012 advice for this Nephrops stock is biennial and valid for 2013 and 2014 (see ICES, 2010) In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advices that catches of 150t should be sustainable for this stock. To protect the stock in this functional unit (FU), management should be implemented at the functional unit level.

18 14 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this Functional Unit. 2 ) The In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advises that landings of 150t should be sustainable for this stock. 3 ) There is currently no advice given following the precautionary approach for this Functional Unit Nephrops in Norwegian Deep (FU 32) Trends The state of the stock is unknown but lpue is fluctuating without trend indicating a stable stock status and suggest that current and past levels of exploitation are sustainable. A slight increase in mean size in the catches in 2007 and 2010 could indicate a reduced exploitation pressure. A new scheme has been developed for Nephrops stocks without accepted analytical assessments. This uses the known area of Nephrops habitat and the range of densities observed on this (or neighbouring) grounds to indicate if historical landings are likely to represent sustainable harvest rates or not. The density in FU 32 is most likely found in the range animals m - 1, where 0.1 animals m -1 is the minimum density observed in the neighbouring Fladen Ground. Historical average (10 year) landings appear to be sustainable and robust to uncertainty in the estimated stock density. Advice The 2012 advice for this Nephrops stock is biennial and valid for 2013 and 2014 (see ICES, 2012). In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advise landings of 1000 t should be sustainable for this stock. For the stock in this functional unit (FU), management is implemented at the functional unit level. Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this Functional Unit. 2 ) The In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advises that landings of 1000t should be sustainable for this stock. 3 ) There is currently no advice given following the precautionary approach for this Functional Unit Nephrops off Horn s Reef (FU 33) Trends The state of this stock is unknown. Lpue has been increasing up to 2008, probably reflecting increase in gear efficiency (technological creep) in the last years. The mean sizes in 2005 catches and the increased lpue s in the subsequent years could indicate a high recruitment in The development in 2009 then suggests that the contribution of the 2005 recruitment to the stock now has faded. Following WKLIFE guidelines a new scheme has been developed for Nephrops stocks without accepted analytical assessments. This uses the known area of Nephrops habi-

19 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT tat and the range of densities observed on this (or other) grounds to indicate if historical landings are likely represent sustainable harvest rates or not. Nephrops density on this ground is unknown, but the neighbouring Fladen ground has typical densities per m 2 so these values are useful proxies. Historical maximum landings appear to be sustainable and robust to uncertainty in the estimated stock Advice The 2012 advice for this Nephrops stock is biennial and valid for 2013 and 2014 (see ICES, 2010). In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advises landings of 1500t should be sustainable for this stock. To protect the stock in this functional unit (FU), management should be implemented at the functional unit level. Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this Functional Unit. 2 ) The In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advises that landings of 1500t should be sustainable for this stock. 3 ) There is currently no advice given following the precautionary approach for this Functional Unit Nephrops in Devil s Hole (FU 34) Trends The state of the stock is not fully known. Based on guideline evaluation the stock appears to be to be exploited close to 10% harvest rate. A new scheme has been developed for Nephrops stocks without accepted analytical assessments. An estimate of the total Nephrops grounds was used to give a likely envelope for the total abundance of Nephrops in the functional unit 34 Devil s Hole (see text table below). The discard rate and mean weight was taken from FU7. The 2012 survey shows that density is low to moderate on this ground at 0.3 burrows per metre squared. 10 year average landings of 600 at this density equates to a harvest rate of around 6.3%, which is well below any proxy for Fmsy used on other grounds. There is uncertainty in the TV estimate, but even if the density were over-estimated by 50%, the harvest rate would still be below 10% at the level of average landings. Maximum landings of 1200t carry an appreciably higher risk of exceeding any MSY proxies. Advice This is the first year ICES gives advice for this Functional Unit separately. The 2012 advice for this Nephrops stock is biennial and valid for 2013 and 2014 (see ICES, 2010). In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advises landings of 600t should be sustainable for this stock. To protect the stock in this functional unit (FU), management should be implemented at the functional unit level. Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this Functional Unit.

20 16 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT ) The In the absence of a full analytical assessment, ICES bases advice for Nephrops on habitat extent and population characteristics. ICES advises that landings of 600t should be sustainable for this stock. 3 ) There is currently no advice given following the precautionary approach for this Functional Unit Nephrops in Other rectangles (NEPOTH) Trends The stock status is unknown. Advice On the basis of precautionary considerations, ICES advises that catches should not increase in these rectangles Additional management considerations 1 ) There is currently no management plan for this area. 2 ) There is currently no advice given following the ICES MSY framework for this area. 3 ) On the basis of precautionary considerations, ICES advises that catches should not increase in these rectangles Software The collation of WGNSSK data highlighted the great diversity of software and settings used in the single species assessments and forecasts, as illustrated in the text table below Species Assessment Forecast HADDOCK IV, IIIa and VIIb FLR 2x, FLXSA MFDP COD IV, IIIa and VIIb SAM SAM PLAICE IV FLR 3.0, FLXSA FLR3.0, FLSTF WHITING IV and VIId FLR 2.x, FLXSA MFDP SAITHE IV, IIIa and VI FLR 2.x, FLXSA FLR 2.x, FLSTF SOLE IV FLR 2.x, FLXSA FLR 2.x, FLSTF In the mixed-fisheries runs, all forecasts run were done with the same FLR forecast method (see chapter 2), but using the Flash package rather than the FLSTF package which is not maintained anymore. 3.2 Fleets and métiers Catch and effort Data The collection of catch and effort data changed significantly in 2012 compared to previous years (cf Annex 2). Previously, data were submitted as comma separated files structured around the distinction of gear, mesh size and vessel length categories (based to a large extent on the format used by the STECF for the evaluation of effort management). In 2012 the data were requested consistent with the definition of DCF métiers, as specified by the joint WGNSSK/WGMIXFISH data call. Beyond the métierbased landings and discards data used by WGNSSK and stored in InterCatch, a break-down of effort and catches across vessel length categories specified to match

21 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT fleet segments from the STECF AER (Annual Economic Report) was provided directly as comma separate files. Some countries provided this breakdown according to the DCF métiers and others according to last year s format, and these inputs were standardized afterwards by WGMIXFISH. Age distribution by métier and area, which is now available in InterCatch, was not integrated in the MIXFISH data this year, but it is ultimately the purpose that these will be included in the near future. In spite of the data now being available according to DCF categorization, WGMIXFISH was of the opinion to continue using the categorization following the EU Cod management plan as used in previous years, both in order to maintain the consistency of the MIXFISH time series and in order to continue addressing management-oriented scenarios and issues. WGMIXFISH métiers are thus defined as combinations of gear, mesh size and area (North Sea (area 4), Skagerrak (area 3AN) or Eastern Channel (area 7D)). The consistency between DCF and EU Cod plan categories had been investigated by WGMIXFISH 2011 and during the pilot data call performed in autumn There it had been shown that most DCF métiers as sampled by individual nations could automatically be allocated to a corresponding EU Cod plan métier, with two exceptions: the TBB_DEF_70-99_0_0 métier in the North Sea (as the corresponding BT2 métier is only defined for the mesh sizes 80-99) and the OTB_DEF (or CRU)_90-119_0_0 métier in the Skagerrak, which straddles the TR1 (>=100 mm) and TR2 (70-99 mm) categories. The proportion of effort and landings in the various mesh size classes for these two métiers was investigated. It was shown that the TBB fisheries with mesh size were very small compared to the fisheries, and therefore the whole DCF métier was considered equivalent to BT2. Similarly, in the Skagerrak the OTB fishery is dominated by the 90 mm fishery targeting Nephrops, and therefore the whole DCF métier was considered a TR2 métier. It was therefore possible to maintain consistency with previous year s data, though with two noticeable changes: first, because no mesh size information was available from Norway in 2011, the whole Norwegian time series was recomputed without any mesh size, thus losing the precision available in previous years. Second, the Swedish Nephrops fishery with an escapement grid, OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35 was previously reported as TR2 (70-89) whereas in 2012 this métier was kept distinct from the other DCF métiers. As previously, data for 2009 was not available from France and had to be assumed equal to 2008 values. Points of note regarding data by nation are contained in Annex 3. A major improvement in 2012 is the increase of discard coverage in the MIXFISH data. Until last year, discards data by fleet/métier were only available for the strata reported by Member States, and these represented only a part (around 50% on average) of the total discards estimates used by WGNSSK (where discard rates had been assigned to unsampled fleets within nations and/or between national fleets ). In 2012, the assignments were done by WGNSSK at the métier level. The final data set extracted from InterCatch for use by WGNSSK therefore included cases where discards had been assigned to categories uploaded with only landings data but for categories that were consistent with the categories in the MIXFISH csv file data. It was therefore possible to make the data for Fcube more compatible with the WGNSSK InterCatch output, by applying the InterCatch discards ratio by métier to the corresponding MIXFISH métiers, using the following adjustment: d * = Dl L

22 18 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Where d* is the revised discard value for the metier used by MIXFISH, l is the weight of landings for the metier used by MIXFISH and L and D are the weight of landings and discards entered for the (vessel length aggregated) metier in InterCatch. Because InterCatch data is aggregated over all vessel lengths the same adjustment was applied to all vessel length categories of otherwise comparable MIXFISH métiers Definitions of fleets and métiers The starting point for defining fleets and métiers was to match definitions used in the cod long term management plan (Table ). Fleets were further split by nation, and sometimes further by vessel length category. The decision to split by vessel length category was initially dependent on the availability of cost data from the Annual Economic Report (AER, cf ICES 2009a), and then to the overall importance of the fleet in terms of total effort. The latter consideration was to prevent unbalance in the relative size of fleets in the model. In 2012, more in-depth consideration was given to the relevance of the current groupings of the fleet segments with regards to known national fishing patterns, for example with regards to saithe fisheries and to Fully Documented Fisheries (FDF). This led to some changes in the fleet definition compared to previous years, and the final choices can be summarized as follows : Belgium: Distinction between <24m and >=24m beam trawlers, and shrimp fisheries with mm excluded Denmark: Distinction of the <10m vessels (trawlers only); separation of the trawlers at <24m, 24-40m and >=40m; FDF vessels in a separate fleet England: Distinction of the <10m vessels; Otter trawlers and seiners pooled together, with separation at <24m, 24-40m and >=40m; FDF vessels in a separate fleet, France: Distinction of the <10m vessels; separation of the trawlers at <40m and >=40m, specific gill- and trammel net fleet. Germany: Distinction between <24m and >=24m beam trawlers, and shrimp fisheries with mm excluded; Otter trawlers and seiners pooled together with separation at <24m, 24-40m and >=40m Netherlands: Distinction between <24m, 24-40m and >=40m beam trawlers; Otter trawlers and seiners pooled together Norway: Otter trawlers and seiners pooled together, with separation at <40m and >=40m; No mesh size used for métiers definition. Scotland: Distinction of the <10m vessels (trawlers only), separation of the trawlers at <24m and >=24m, FDF vessels in a separate fleet, Otter trawlers and seiners pooled together Sweden: No distinction of vessel size. Selective devices included in métiers definition for 2011 only. As a second step, and in order to reduce the number of categories, an aggregation threshold, established through trial and error was used to determine small métiers. A métier failing to catch 1.0% in 2011 of at least one of the stocks considered was classified as small. Within each fleet, all these small métiers are then aggregated by fleet in one Other métier (OTH). Further, all small fleets (i.e. containing only the OTH métier), were afterwards aggregated into one single OTH fleet.

23 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT All these changes performed during the 2012 WG led to a significant increase in the number of fishing units identified for the North Sea demersal fisheries compared to previous years. In 2012, the final data used contained 39 national fleets (plus the OTH fleet) from nine countries (against 27 fleets in 2011), from 2003 to These fleets engage in one to four different métiers each, resulting in 88 combinations (against 68 in 2011) of country*fleet*métier*area catching cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice, sole and Nephrops (Table ). As a cross check of the data the total landings and discards across all fleets was compared to the values estimated from the single species stock assessments (Figure ). Some landings may not be allocated to fleets, due to for example missing countries or areas (e.g. area VIa for saithe) or national landings with missing logbook information that cannot be allocated to a fleet. The landings coverage for most stocks is high (from 75 to 100% of landings could be allocated to one of the fleets). Since cod unallocated removals are now removed from the landings in the SAM assessment, the match of cod landings was also satisfactory this year (above 85%, against 50% in previous years). In 2012, the match of discards estimates has clearly improved, due to the availability of raised discards ratio by métier in InterCatch. To solve the remaining small inconsistencies between fleets data and stock data, the differences between them were pooled into the "OTH" fleet (both landings and discards) Trends A number of overview graphs (using the Lattice package in R) were produced to aid quality checking of the data once compiled into the final fleets object. Some are useful to show the relative importance of the fleets chosen and trends in their effort and catches. Effort by fleet in absolute levels (Figure ) and relative trends (Figure ), effort share by métier and fleet (Figure ) and landings by fleet and stock (Figure ) are included in this report. 4 Mixed fisheries forecasts 4.1 Description of scenarios Baseline Runs The objectives of the single species stock baseline runs were to: 4 ) reproduce as closely as possible the single species 2012 advice produced by ACOM, and 5 ) act as the reference scenario for subsequent mixed fisheries analyses. The various single-stock forecasts presented by WGNSSK are performed using different software and setups (see above). However, for the purpose of the mixedfisheries analyses, it is necessary to gather all forecasts into a single unified framework, which builds on the fwd() method in FLR (Flash R add-on package). The same forecast settings as in WGNSSK are used for each stock regarding weight-at-age, selectivity and recruitment, as well as assumptions on the F in the intermediate year and basis for advice (LTMP or MSY approach). Some differences can occur in the forecast calculations, (sometimes because of the diversity of single-stock assessment methods used) and the WG always investigates in depth the reasons for potential discrepancies. Adjustments to the Fcube forecasts are made if necessary to minimise discrepancies to the largest extent possible.

24 20 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 There may also be small differences in the catch input to WGNSSK assessments and the more disaggregated data provided for WGMIXFISH. The results from WGNSSK use discard estimating procedures which utilise estimated discard rates from across countries to fill missing gear specific estimates whereas WGMIXFISH input data provided country specific estimates only, which results in some missing discard values for some gear/species combinations compared to the WGNSSK data. This is compensated for by raising discards in the WGMIXFISH data to match those records on InterCatch used by WGNSSK to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, identical catches. The intention of the baseline runs was thus mainly to act as a check to ensure that the projections were set-up correctly within the Fcube script, but these runs also have the incidental benefit of acting as a quality control check on the WGNSSK projections themselves Mixed fisheries runs Fcube analyses of the intermediate year (2012) The single species stock forecast settings and target F for 2012 from the baseline run were used to perform Fcube scenario analyses for 2012 (Run One Year Fcube Single-Stock TargetF 2012). The aim of these analyses was to provide alternative sets of plausible levels of F by stock in 2012 accounting for mixed-fisheries interactions. This is similar to the base case run described and analysed in ICES (2008). The Fcube scenarios max, min, cod, sq_e and Ef_Mgt were performed Fcube analyses for the TAC year (2013) The new F2012 values by stock derived from the Fcube scenarios were used as input for the Intermediate Year in single-species forecasts, instead of the values from WGNSSK. The stocks were projected again to 2014, using the same settings (objectives and constraints) for 2013 as in the Baseline Run. The aim was to derive single species stock TAC advice for 2013 following the single species advice approach but as if catch resulting from the assumed mixed-fisheries interactions in 2012 had come about and the data were available for the intermediate year. Finally, for each Fcube scenario, the same scenario was applied in 2013 to the stock results (numbers-at-age) resulting from applying that scenario for In this way the following could be calculated: Differences in recommended TACs for 2013 resulting from the single species advice approach being applied to the stock status at the end of the intermediate year of different scenarios and An estimate of the cumulative difference between baseline run (single species advice) intermediate year catch plus TAC and realised catches over two years from each scenario,

25 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT In summary, the Fcube runs followed the scheme below: Single stock assessment 2012 Management Plan/ MSY approach FCUBE 2012 min max Ef_Mgt sq_e cod Catch in 2012 & SSB at start of 2013 Single stock Management Plans applied to FCUBE results TAC 2013 TAC 2013 TAC 2013 TAC 2013 TAC 2013 FCUBE 2013 Potentional Over / Under quota utilisation (Difference between advised TAC and expected landings) 4.2 Results of Fcube runs Baseline run The rationale behind the single species baseline runs is given in Section Table contains the outputs from these runs. The issues and problems encountered in replicating the single species advice for each species are given below. The results from these baseline runs are compared with the results from the corresponding ICES runs in Tables and , and summarised at Figure Cod: The entire basis for North Sea assessment and forecast was changed from the B- Adapt to the SAM assessment package in early 2011 (ICES WKCOD 2011), and this had important consequences for the WG s ability to reproduce it in Fcube. The cod forecast is produced internally in the SAM assessment method using 5000 stochastic replicates drawn within the confidence interval of the F, N and Catch multiplier estimates, while the WGMIXFISH forecast is only a deterministic projection. As the median of the forecasted assessment may be slightly different from the forecast of the median assessment, small discrepancies may appear. In addition, the assessment and projection include a component of unallocated removals, while the FLR setup normally copes only with landings and discards. This latter issue was handled in two steps, first by combining unallocated removals and discards within the projections, to maintain the TAC constraint on the landings component, and second by splitting the resulting discards into actual discards and unallocated removals based on 2011 ratios. In 2012 ACOM changed the basis for the assumption of F in the intermediate year to reflect the fact that the realised decline in F has been slower than the Management Plan stipulated. The new assumption is based on the slope of the recent trends in reduction in F over , giving an F multiplier of 0.87 between 2011 and This same assumption was carried across into the Fcube simulations.

26 22 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 The final discrepancy between the ICES cod advice and the WGMIXFISH replicate was low (0.4% in estimated 2012 landings and 0% in 2013), and the FLR forecast could thus be used as a satisfactory basis for the mixed-fisheries projection. At the fleet level, unallocated removals were technically treated as a specific fleet to ease the automatic calculations in Fcube. Haddock: The methods developed in WGNSSK to parameterise future selectivity and weight-at-age for haddock are sometimes quite specific and do not always follow common standards, and therefore some input data had been entered manually rather than through automation. Afterwards the results were very similar with less than 1% discrepancy between SSB projections. Whiting: There are some discrepancies in the forecast catches from the WG and the FLR forecasts. A small error was discovered in the single-species whiting advice, linked to an overestimation of the share of the VIId catches in the forecast. Whilst this doesn t affect the advice of a 15% TAC increase in the North Sea for 2012, it may have some small consequences for the estimation of the whiting TAC for subarea VII. The WGMIXFISH projections are based on the corrected share between areas. A second source of differences between WGMIXFISH and WGNSSK can be attributed to differences in the way the industrial by-catch is handled by the two approaches. In the WGNSSK forecast this is handled as a separate fleet with a fixed multiplier, whereas in the FLR forecasts it is included within the landings component. Saithe: Straightforward, no problems encountered. Plaice: Straightforward, no problems encountered. Sole: Straightforward, no problems encountered Nephrops: The forecasts applied the recommended harvest rates to the most recent abundance estimates available for the relevant FUs; hence the process replicated precisely the ICES advice. However, there are two issues that arise due to different assumptions to the WGNSSK. Firstly, there is a difference in the assumed harvest ratio in the intermediate year. Whereas WGNSSK assumes that the harvest ratio is equivalent to the average ratio of the most recent three years, the WGMIXFISH value is based on a share of the 2012 TAC applied to the abundance estimates in 2012 for that particular FU (equal to proportion of the N Sea TAC that was taken from the FU in the most recent year). This can cause pronounced differences if the harvest ratio has a steep decrease or increase in the most recent year. For example, in the case of FU9 the harvest ratio has increased significantly in the last year, which is weighted down by previous years in the averaging process of the single species forecast. The assumption taken in WGMIXFISH may be more appropriate, as it s quicker to react to changes in biomass or exploitation patterns where activity moves between FUs; however it has no consequence either for WGNSSK or WGMIXFISH TAC year harvest ratio or TAC advice as the harvest ratio in 2012 is not used in the forecasts for Secondly, the TAC result for FUs may be different between WGNSSK and WGMIX- FISH. This results because the TAC advice from the single species assessments is an advised landing per FU. However, because management is currently by a combined TAC, not FU, WGMIXFISH assumes that the total TAC is taken in proportion to the ratio of last year s landings by FU, distributing the landings differently to the advice. Such an approach assumes the same catchability as last year, as for other stocks in the Fcube simulations.

27 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Mixed fisheries analyses Fcube analyses of the intermediate year (2012) The Target F by stock for 2012 were set as the landings component of the F used in the Baseline (see table ). For cod the same assumption was used as in the ICES WGNSSK (ICES 2012) that the target F in the management plan would not be met, but that F has reduced following the trend observed over (i.e. 13% F reduction in 2012 on 2011 rather than 18% reduction). It is to be noted that for cod, whiting and sole, the single-species forecast assumptions used by ICES WGNSSK (ICES 2012) (and reproduced here in the baseline) imply to some extent expected landings for 2012 higher than the actual TAC. The Fcube scenarios min, max, sq_e, cod and Ef_Mgt were applied to these target Fs (Table and Figures to ). The results were interesting when compared to the TAC year forecasts in WGMIXFISH last year (i.e. the intermediate year this year; ICES, 2011). In the 2011 MIXFISH projections the forecasted limiting species was cod, but in the 2012 simulations haddock is the limiting species in the intermediate year for almost all fleets. This changed perception may be a consequence of the fact that 1) lower than expected discard rates in 2011 (used for estimating discards in 2012) lead to more consistency between catchability of cod and other species, and 2) because estimates of natural mortality in the cod assessment were revised upwards following multi-species analysis (ICES, 2011d), maintaining the perception of SSB trends, but with F2010 revised down (by 14%) in the 2011 assessment indicating less of a gap between the current and required F. In 2011 there was fairly good consistency between the single-stock forecasts and the status quo effort (sq_e) scenario, as most single-stock forecasts assumed status quo F in the intermediate year, and should therefore be in line with status quo effort. However, this was not the case in 2012, with the single stock being similar to sq_e for sole and whiting but sq_e indicating 9%, 18% and 15% higher landings for cod, saithe and plaice respectively. This lack of consistency has important consequences in terms of advice, as it suggests that the cod forecast may be considered slightly overoptimistic for 2012 if effort does not reduce in However, it does still indicate that even if effort remains constant from 2011 to 2012 then some reduction in F can still be expected and therefore the working group assumption of a (reduced) F reduction in the intermediate year may be well founded.. The outcomes of the cod scenario are no longer comparable to the outcomes of the min scenario (cf ICES WGMIXFISH 2010), with the min scenario limited by haddock. This indicates that the cod stock is not necessarily the limiting stock for the majority of fleets; with Figure indicating the majority of fleets are now limited by haddock (and saithe to a lower extent) for which they may have low quota shares or higher catchabilities. For 2012 the cod TAC was basically rolled-over from 2011, and thus F estimates and catches are more likely to be consistent between the two years. On the contrary, both haddock and saithe forecasts assume a constraining TAC for 2012, which implies a reduction of F in 2012 compared to 2011, of 34% and 15% respectively. This maintains haddock F at 0.2, which is 50% below the management plan target for As the model assumes by default that catchability in 2012 is the same as in 2011, then this reduction in F can only be achieved in the model through a reduction of effort, which has then implications for the other species in a mixedfisheries context.

28 24 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 The Ef_Mgt scenario implies quite large effort reductions in 2011 in the main cod metiers (TR1, TR2 and to a lower extent BT2). The scenario shows some consistency with the single species advice target landings except for cod and whiting where catches are indicated to be considerably lower than the single stock advice. There is also undershoot for Nephrops landings. The scenario leads to overshoots for haddock and saithe while there is little impact on the catches of plaice and sole. The min and max scenarios are still kept in the figures as illustrative boundaries, but WGMIXFISH consider that these scenarios are not realistic in a management perspective. Hindcasting exercises over historical data (up to 2008) have been conducted by Ulrich et al. (2011.), showing that actual realised fleet effort had been in almost all cases between but far from the min and max estimates, and closer to the sq_e and val (where fleet effort on a stock is weighted by the value of landings for that species by that fleet compared to the overall value of landings for that fleet) scenarios. This can be understood when looking at the effort estimates for the various fleets corresponding to their various quota share (Figures and ) estimated through the relationships between F, effort and catches, where it is clear that for most fleets the max estimate is driven up by non-important by-catch species, especially whiting. Importantly, Figure displays only information on landings, i.e. the share of predicted catches that corresponds to marketable fish, according to the discards ratio observed in assessment data (as in the single-stock forecast). Potential overshoot/undershoot on this figure are calculated by comparing the single-stock landings estimates for 2012 with the mixed-fisheries landings estimates. To get an overview of the amount of total catches for the various scenarios, Figure displays the catch by category, i.e. potential legal landings (i.e. below the official 2012 TAC, which in practice acts as a TAL), potential over TAC landings, i.e. estimated landings above this official TAC, if any, and discards, as calculated according to the discards ratio observed in assessment data (as in the single-stock forecast). Therefore the discards in this figure reflect undersize discarding rather than overquota discarding. In the case of cod there is also the issue of unallocated removals. These are simply considered constant over all scenarios Fcube analyses for the TAC year (2013) The full overview of the two year projections to 2013 is presented in Table and Figures to The Fcube outputs for 2013 are quite comprehensive and their interpretation is not easy. An example of interpretation is given in the scheme below to aid understanding of the advice tables. The example follows the landings results for the cod stock in the Fcube Ef_Mgt scenario under the Management Plan advice approach:

29 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT In this example, the baseline run, which follows the single-stock ICES advice, assumes landings of tonnes in 2012 (corresponding to a 13% reduction in F from F2011 to F2012 following analysis of recent mean F trend), and tonnes in The resulting SSB in 2014 is estimated to be tonnes. However, assuming that the effort restrictions imposed for 2012 on TR1, TR2 and BT2 (18.2% reduction for TR1 and TR2 and 2-10% reductions for BT2 depending on the country) are applied, the 2011 landings are estimated at tonnes, i.e. 9.5% less than assumed in the baseline. If this was the case, then the TAC advice for 2012 would still be set to tonnes in order to comply with the management plan rules on single species advice in 2012 But the resulting SSB in 2013 is estimated to be tonnes, 7% higher than the resulting SSB following the single species advice according to the cod Management Plan. If again we assume that the fleets fish in line with the effort reductions in 2013 (22.2% reduction for TR1, TR2 and a 2-10% reduction for BT2), then the landings in 2013 would be estimated at tonnes, i.e. 17% above the initial single-stock baseline. While the Single-Stock advice estimates an SSB level around tonnes by 2013 under full compliance with the MP, the Ef_Mgt Fcube scenario (following the effort reduction from the Management Plan) estimates SSB in 2013 as high as tonnes. In other words, effort reductions in 2012 would be more beneficial to the stock than was assumed in the single-stock projection, but the further effort reductions proposed for 2013 would not be sufficient to achieve the Management Plan target in terms of F. Considering results table with respect to all species, the first set of results to investigate is the sensitivity of the single-stock advice to the Fcube hypotheses applied to the intermediate year, i.e. what happens if we maintain the same single-stock target for 2013 as in the current advice, but change the 2012 hypotheses (Block D in the output tables compared to the 2013 Baseline in Block C {uppermost line}). Due to TAC constraints included in the management plans for most stocks, the differences

30 26 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 are in most cases relatively small (usually less than +/-10% changes compared to the single-stock forecast), although some more extreme values can sometimes appear in the min and max scenarios. From 2012 this situation is true for all stocks including whiting because an interim LTMP for whiting has been implemented for the past two years with a similar basis to other demersal stocks. The second set of results to investigate is the difference between i) the potential 2013 landings (~TAC advice) when considering mixed-fisheries interactions during both 2012 and 2013 (block C), ii) the single-species advice (2013 baseline in block C and horizontal lines in Figure ) and iii) the mixed-fisheries advice accounting for single species Management Plans (Block D). This provides estimates of potential over/under shooting of 2013 TACs due to mixed-fisheries interactions. It is worth noting that the SSB for cod under sq_e is similar in 2013 but much lower in 2014 than under the baseline, resulting over the two years in the continuing current trends of slowly increasing SSB. The picture for haddock is much less optimistic with a much larger decline predicted than in the baseline for both 2013 and 2014 (Figure ). This results from the overshoot in the intermediate year if F remains the same, whilst cod again becomes the limiting stock for all fleets in 2013, with haddock landings again coming broadly into line with those projected by the baseline (Figure ). This is interesting as it suggests that whilst management measures have largely been focussed on cod recovery in recent years (as it has generally been the limiting stock) this is not necessarily the case in 2012 as the TAC was rolled over from 2011, and therefore there is a need to take account of changing stock dynamics and consistency (or otherwise) of TACs. In terms of effort management, the simulations indicate that while current levels of effort (sq_e) are likely to achieve the expected 12% reduction in cod fishing mortality in 2012, they are unlikely to achieve the target 35% reduction of F in 2013 compared to 2008 as stipulated by the management plan, and further effort reductions may be required. This is in contrast to projections in 2011 (ICES< 2011) which indicated that the target for 2012 would not be met; indicating that changes to discarding levels may have brought about a reduction in overall catchability that could not be predicted. Alternatively, stepwise effort reductions in TR1 and TR2 in both 2012 and 2013 (Ef_Mgt) would imply some interesting consequences. Reductions in F for 2012 beyond that required by the management plan under the Ef_Mgt scenario indicate that the full catching opportunities would not be taken. However, much more abrupt reductions in effort would be required in 2013 to bring the fleets into line with the baseline catching opportunities for cod in In contrast, the Ef_Mgt scenario leads to underutilisation of both the plaice and sole baseline TACs, suggesting a significant impact from the effort reductions on beam trawls from the plaice and sole management plan. The advice for a 20% reduction in cod TAC in light of an increasing biomass means that catchability would increase whilst quota decreases, meaning significantly lower activity or changes to catchability required in order to achieve the cod target in If this is achieved through effort reductions it would also have strong negative impacts on the ability of the fleets to catch all other 2013 TACs, particularly haddock, whiting and Nephrops but also to some extent plaice and saithe. The likely TAC increase for all but Nephrops stocks in 2013 (according to ICES advice and as repeated in the baseline run) will create strong incentives for maintaining effort at its current level or even to increase it slightly - since even in the sq_e scenario the estimated

31 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT landings are below the baseline for haddock, plaice, whiting and to a lesser extent Nephrops (Figure ). To get an overview of the amount of total catches for the various scenarios, Figure displays the catch by scenario for each of the species. These results are now used to form the basis of mixed fisheries advice for the North Sea. WGMIXFISH stresses again that these scenarios are based on central assumptions that fishing patterns and catchability in 2012 and 2013 are similar to those in 2011, as in a single-stock forecast where growth and selectivity are assumed constant. However, as for growth and selectivity, it is known that in reality, fleet dynamics will adapt to changes in fishing environment and opportunities. But the direction and magnitude of these changes, occurring at the level of the individual fishers, cannot be easily predicted and integrated in a model. WGMIXFISH underlines therefore that these scenarios are useful for pointing out where are the highest risk of unbalance among fishing opportunities, rather than predicting what will happen next year. Discrepancies between the outcomes of the various scenarios indicate considerable imbalance between the single-species targets, suggesting that indeed fleets will have to adapt e.g. by changing fishing patterns, catchability or discarding practices Relative stability Relative stability as such is not directly included as an input to the model. Instead, an assumption that the relative landings share of the fleets are constant is used as a proxy, and in the scenarios above, this input is calculated as the average landing share by fleet and stock over As a cross check, the landings by national fleets were summed over nation for each scenario, and the share by country was compared with this initial input (Figure ). The results show only minor deviations across all scenarios, except for the Ef_Mgt scenario. Here the fact the majority of Scottish vessels come under the scope of the EU effort management regime whereas Norwegian vessels are unaffected by the same regime leads to a shift of landings share from the former to the latter under the assumptions of the model. 5 Future Developments 5.1 Future developments for WGMIXFISH MIXFISH methodology meeting The terms of reference for WGMIXFISH (see section 1.5) include those for a meeting to be held in August. Mixed fisheries projections and advice for North Sea stocks was always envisaged as a first step in developing such advice throughout the ICES regions (ICES 2012b). The successful benchmarking of analytical assessments for two stocks west of Scotland (ICES division VIa) offers the possibility of using the Fcube software in a way similar to in the North Sea. The EU commission also requested of ICES mixed fisheries projections using a scenario of all species fished at Fmsy in Such a scenario considering the mean F on each stock two years beyond the TAC year has not been attempted before and was considered beyond the scope of a purely operational meeting such as the May meeting of WGMIXFISH. Agreed in 2012 the August meeting has been made a second meeting of WGMIX- FISH for reasons of ease of administration. There is a clear need for ongoing methodological development and for testing the ability to perform mixed fisheries

32 28 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 forecasts in further areas. It is hoped a regular ICES WG meeting can be established in its own right to consider future developments. For example, a working paper was presented at WGHMM to consider whether mixed fisheries projections could be applied to stocks covered by that WG (Castro and Santurtun, 2012) and it is believed a suggested contribution to terms of reference for a MIXFISH methodology meeting in 2013 are in preparation. WGMIXFISH also has candidate future scenarios (see next section) but continuing difficulties in data supply to WGMIXFISH and very high workload for assessment scientists in the second quarter restrict this WG to production of advice according to established methodology Candidate future scenarios Projected trend in fleet effort levels The outcomes from previous WGMIXFISH results (ICES, 2009, 2010b), as well as the general evaluation of the successes and failures of the cod LTMP (STECF/ ICES WKROUNDMP 2011c) have pointed out the importance of the specification of the intermediate (current) year for minimising implementation error. In 2009 in particular, the TAC advice for cod was based on a literal interpretation of the LTMP stating that F would be reduced by 25% in the first year of implementation, while effort data have shown that only limited effort reduction took place that year (STECF 2010) and indeed F was estimated as not having decreased in ICES WGMIXFISH and WKROUNDMP have also investigated the link between fishing effort and fishing mortality for North Sea cod (and Irish Sea cod). The results showed that, although imperfect and not necessarily fully linear, a link was nevertheless observed. In particular, it was shown that the correlation between fishing effort and fishing mortality was visible for the fisheries catching cod as bycatch (e.g. TR2 and BT2), but less significant for the targeted fishery TR1. In summary a key weakness of the current cod management plan has been an overoptimistic single-stock short-term forecast with regards to the intermediate year. Although useful in demonstrating the possible outcome if the nominal effort cuts of the effort management regime were translated in full into actual effort cuts (and mean F reductions) the effort management scenario is considered to be unrepresentative of actual outcomes. In 2012 WGNSSK presented a second options table for cod that, instead of the assumptions of the management plan, used as its basis for the intermediate year a projection of the trend in mean F estimated over recent years. In a similar spirit it would be possible to make use of the MIXFISH data from 2003 to estimate trends in effort in the fleets used by WGMIXFISH and project those effort trends forwards into the intermediate and TAC years. In-year effort comparison An alternative to projected effort trends would be to evaluate the uptake levels for TACs and effort ceilings in the intermediate (current) year and compare these with their equivalent over the same period the previous year, as a first rough proxy for the actual fishing pressure in the intermediate year. WGMIXFISH 2011 investigated this possibility but found that only some countries could provide information on withinyear quota uptake at short notice.

33 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Value scenario The cod scenario presents the expected outcome if the F reductions on cod stipulated in the cod long term management plan were achieved in full and the relative catchability of different species by fleets and metiers remained constant going forwards. A consequence of this approach is that effort reductions in fleets (to achieve new partial Fs) apply equally to fleets where cod is a major component of the catch and those where it represents a small bycatch component. In 2012 the most pronounced example of this effect is for saithe targeted fisheries where application of the cod scenario leads to small reductions in cod catch but very large reductions in saithe catches. A scenario examined in the past (Ulrich et al., 2011) weighted the amount of effort a fleet needed to catch each species in its portfolio of catches by the value of landings for that species by that fleet compared to the overall value of landings for that fleet. Because catchability is calculated in Fcube as landings/effort the model has effectively adopted new catchabilities. Previously the scenario then assumed the effort necessary to land all quotas was deployed. Having adjusted catchabilities the technique can be matched with other ideas such as conforming to cod scenario targets. Hindcasting With data going back to 2003 it is possible to run mixed fisheries projections as they have been performed this year for a total of ten years. It is possible to compare the results from the first eight of those projections to current single species assessment estimates of SSB and F in the corresponding years. Existing and proposed scenarios can be compared for their ability to predict actual outcomes Towards mixed-fishery management plans At present, WGMIXFISH provides annual advice on the implications of single stock management advice in the context of the mixed fisheries of the North Sea. In practice the TAC advice for many of the North Sea demersal stocks is derived from long-term management plans for those stocks. A logical development for the work of the WG would be the explicit incorporation of mixed-fishery effects within long-term management plans. Recent proposals on the reform of the European Union s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) provide a context for this. Long-term management plans have been an important component of EU fisheries management since the 2002 CFP reform. Public consultation in relation to the recent reform proposals has found very strong support for the implementation of long-term management plans (CEC, 2011a). The current proposals (CEC, 2011b) widen the basis for the use of management plans as follows: Multi-annual plans should where possible cover multiple stocks where those stocks are jointly exploited. The multiannual plans should establish the basis for fixing fishing opportunities and quantifiable targets for the sustainable exploitation of stocks and marine ecosystems concerned, defining clear timeframes and safeguard mechanisms for unforeseen developments. The proposals also give more detail on the anticipated content of management plans in this context (see Article 11 in CEC, 2011b). In the North Sea, mixed-fishery effects have been implicated as a contributing factor to the lack of recovery of the cod stock (Bannister, 2004; Hamon et al., 2007; STECF/ICES WKROUNDMP 2011); hence the demersal stocks of the North Sea

34 30 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 would be an obvious candidate for a mixed-fishery management plan of the type anticipated in the CFP reform proposals. The scientific input to long-term management plans generally involves the evaluation of harvest control rules, the parameters of which are typically derived from simulation studies. Such studies also provide a means of translating the objectives of the plan (e.g. Achieve MSY ) into numeric values, i.e. a target F that is likely to lead to maximum long-term yield. In any move to a mixed-fishery management plan, there would be a need to revisit both the objectives of the plan and the associated harvest control rules. There would also be a need to address the linkages between the different stocks within the plan, i.e. the mixed-fishery interactions. With regard to the possible objectives of a mixed fishery plan, questions arise as to whether MSY objectives should be set, e.g. as a set of single stock MSY targets, or in more ecological and/or socio-economic terms. Similar questions arise with regard to candidate HCRs, i.e. could TACs be specified on some combined basis with constraints on catches of individual stocks. Experience with similar approaches off Alaska and New Zealand might be instructive here. The issue of how to deal with linkages between stocks might be best addressed by comprehensive simulation/management strategy evaluation studies with full, explicit representation of technical interactions in the way that is possible with the Fcube approach (Ulrich et al, 2011). At WGMIXFISH 2011 the WG considered steps to fuller integration of mixed fisheries forecasts into stock advice. Most of the steps recommended have been implemented in One remaining idea is for advice to become an iterative process whereby Fcube is used to test the likelihood of assumptions made in single species short term forecasts, until the basis for the forecasts become consistent over stocks. This in turn implies the mixed fisheries forecasts being imbedded into the WGNSSK meeting. Continued problems over data consistency make this unrealistic in the near term. 6 Conclusions and Recommendations WGMIXFISH has produced a draft North Sea Mixed Fisheries advice for use by ACOM. This is the first meeting of WGMIXFISH held so that mixed fisheries advice can be available alongside ICES single species advice in June. No methodological problems were encountered with the Fcube package. However, problems were encountered because of the close proximity of this WG to that of WGNSSK; advice for some stocks (Nephrops) was revised as late as the second last day of WGMIXFISH. To reduce the burden of data supply to different end users, increase the consistency of data between single species and mixed species analyses and improve the quality and transparency of data supply and aggregation for the single species assessments a single data call sufficient for both WGNSSK and WGMIXFISH was devised for This has allowed a greater consistency between catch totals supplied to WGMIXFISH and WGNSSK (see section 3.2.2). The ambition that WGMIXFISH data could be obtained through an extraction from InterCatch of the data compiled for WGNSSK was not realised, however, primarily because the level of fleet disaggregation best suited to the mixed fisheries projections were incompatible with national sampling schemes and the need to keep the number of fleet-metier combinations used in the ICES database (InterCatch) to a manageable number. Separate files containing vessel length specific data had to be requested and (as in 2010 and 2011), late, incomplete or data

35 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT with errors meant the dataset for the Fcube software was only completed part way through the meeting. The joint WGNSSK-WGMIXFISH data call is similar too but separate from data submissions to STECF. WGMIXFISH recommends to the EU commission that metier classes be made compatible between the effort, catch and economic datasets requested of nations by STECF as soon as possible. To increase trust in the results from alternative scenarios it is considered important for the Fcube code to reproduce as exactly as possible the single species projections in the first instance. At WGMIXFISH_2010 producing the baseline run exposed detailed differences in short term forecast methodology between species that are unrelated to restrictions imposed by different software packages. The WG notes there remains no agreed standard approach to e.g. scaling a mean selection pattern to terminal year mean F. Reproducing this year s single-stock advice led to the discovery of a mistake in the computation of the draft whiting advice, which will be amended. As also shown in previous years, running mixed fisheries projections can provide a valuable quality assurance for the single species forecasts. The use of multiple Fcube scenarios leads to a very data rich set of results. The move to give single species advice according to a single criteria (management plan if it exists, FMSY framework otherwise) helps reduce the level of complexity and is welcomed by WGMIXFISH. The max and min scenarios were included to bracket the space of potential catch and SSB outcomes but for most fleets are considered unrealistic scenarios. The effect of fleet behaviours on The TAC set for 2013 (assuming perfect knowledge of catches in the intermediate year), The amount caught compared to single species TAC recommendations, The SSB remaining at the start of 2014, all need to be considered when reviewing the results of mixed fisheries analysis and this process will continue beyond this WG. However, some initial conclusions are that Results across scenarios are similar for the intermediate year. This overall result can be attributed to a number of factors Assumptions for the intermediate year in the single species cod forecast more in line with an assumption of status quo effort. Data provided to WGMIXFISH showing reduced catchabilities on cod by significant cod catching fleets. Increases in assessed cod SSB in recent years. The introduction of a long term management plan for whiting. Unlike the forecasts performed in 2010 and 2011 the Ef_Mgt scenario intermediate year landings as not restrictive as those from the min scenario. Data supplied to WGMIXFISH as well as other expert groups also suggest that effort in fleets subject to the EU effort regime have not to date reduced effort by the amounts expected from a straightforward interpretation of the effort regulations. The working group would therefore like to investigate at its August meeting the possibility of using within year effort uptake as an alternative to the Ef_Mgt scenario or extrapolation of recorded trends in fleets efforts (see section 5.1.2)

36 32 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 The advised single stock TACs for 2013 cannot be said to be consistent given the current landings compositions of North Sea fleets as can be seen from Figure If the TAC for cod is assumed to limit the activity of fleets (cod scenario) the forecasts predict considerable underutilisation of other TACs, particularly those for haddock, plaice and saithe. The Ef_Mgt scenario is predicted to lead to a small overshoot of cod landings but considerably reduces the underutilisation of saithe quota compared to the cod scenario. While the cod scenario affects almost all metiers, thus sharing the burden of F reduction across most fleets and countries, the Ef_Mgt scenario affects uniquely the trawl metiers, which catch the bulk of cod, haddock and whiting landings. The Ef_Mgt scenario leads to greater underutilisation of whiting quota compared to the cod scenario. Results showing the effort required for different fleets to fully utilise the different quotas available to them (Figure ) suggest that for a number of significant fleets cod is not the limiting stock in Following the TAC constraint assumed in the single species forecast leads to haddock becoming the limiting stock for the majority of fleets. This does not remain the case in the TAC year (2013), however, as the requirements of the cod management plan again make cod the limiting stock in most fleets (Figure ). 7 References Bannister, R. C. A. (2004). The rise and fall of cod (Gadus morhua, L.) in the North Sea. In Management of Shared Fish Stocks (Payne, A. I. L., O Brien, C. M. & Rogers, S. I., eds), pp Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Castro, J. and Santurtun, M Mixed-fisheries advice for ICES WGHMM stocks. Working document presented at ICES WGHMM pp. Commission of the European Communities (2011a) Commission Staff Working Document: Synthesis of the Consultation on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. SEC(2010)428 final. (available from: Commission of the European Communities (2011b) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy. COM(2011) 425 final. (available from: Hamon, K., Ulrich, C., Hoff, A., and Kell, L. T Evaluation of management strategies for the mixed North Sea roundfish fisheries with the FLR framework. In MODSIM 2007 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2007, pp Ed. by L. Oxley, and D. Kulasiri. mon_.pdf Holmes, S. J., Bailey, N., Campbell, N., Catarino, R., Barratt, K., Gibb, A., and Fernandes, P. G Using fishery-dependent data to inform the development and operation of a comanagement initiative to reduce cod mortality and cut discards. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: ICES Report of the Study Group on Mixed Fisheries Management (SGMixMan), January 2008, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2008/ACOM: pp. ICES 2009a. Report of the Workshop on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea, August 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2009\ACOM: pp. ICES 2009b. Report of the ad hoc Group on mixed Fisheries in the North Sea (AGMIXNS), 3-4 November 2009, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2009\ACOM:52. 48pp.

37 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT ICES 2010a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK), 5 11 May ICES CM 2010\ACOM:13. ICES 2010b. Report of the Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea (WGMIXFISH, May 2012, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:22 94 pp. ICES, 2011a. Workshop on the analysis of the benchmark of cod in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel) and Division IIIa (Skagerrak). ICES CM/ACOM:51 ICES, 2011b. Report of the Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice for the North Sea (WGMIXFISH, May 2012, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:22 94 pp. ICES. 2011c. Report of the ICES WKROUNDMP / STECF EWG Evaluation and Impact Assessment of Management Plans PT II, June 2011, Hamburg, Germany. ICES CM 2011/ACOM: pp. ICES.2011d. Report of the Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM), October 2011, Woods Hole, USA. ICES CM 2011/SSGSUE: pp. ICES, 2012a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK), 27 April - 3 May 2012, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:##. #### pp. ICES, 2012b. Roadmap for Provision of Integrated Advice in ICES. ACOM meeting, Copenhagen, November 2011, Doc 7.i.i. Kell, L., T., Mosqueira, I., Grosjean, P., Fromentin, J-M., Garcia, D., Hillary, R., Jardim, E., Mardle, S., Pastoors, M. A., Poos, J. J., Scott, F., and R.D. Scott (2007). FLR: an open-source framework for the evaluation and development of management strategies. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN , URL STECF, th Plenary Meeting Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PEN-10-02), July 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. Ulrich, C., Reeves, S.A., and S.B.M. Kraak (2008). Mixed Fisheries and the Ecosystem Approach. ICES Insight 45: Ulrich, C., Reeves, S. A., Vermard, Y., Holmes, S. J., and Vanhee, W Reconciling singlespecies TACs in the North Sea demersal fisheries using the Fcube mixed-fisheries advice framework. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68:

38 34 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Table 1.2.1, Council regulations introducing and modifying fishing effort (days at sea) allowances in EU fisheries. Year of application Regulation 2003 (EC) No 2341/2002 Annex XVII 2004 (EC) No 2287/2003 Annex V 2005 (EC) No 27/2005 Annex IVa 2006 (EC) No 51/2006 Annex IIa 2007 (EC) No 41/2007 Annex IIa 2008 (EC) No 40/2008 Annex IIa 2009 (EC) No 43/2009 Annex IIa 2010 (EU) No 23/2010 Annex IIa 2011 (EU) No 57/2011_Annex IIa 2012 (EU) No 43/2012_Annex IIa (EU) No 44/2012_Annex IIa Table 1.2.2, Effort reductions in 2012 compared to 2011 and 2013 compared to 2012 by EU regulated fleet segment. Gear Description Code % effort reduction in 2012 % effort reduction in 2013 compared to 2011 compared to 2012 Bottom trawls and seines >= 100mm TR1 18.2% 22.2% Bottom trawls and seines >= 70mm & < 100mm TR2 18.2% 22.2% Bottom trawls and seines >= 16mm & < 32mm TR3 0% Beam trawls >= 120mm BT1 0% Beam trawls >= 80mm & < 120mm BT2 Between 0% and 9,85% 0% for some countries Gill nets and entangling nets, excluding trammel nets GN1 0% Trammel nets TN1 0% Longlines LL1 0% Not regulated gear None 0%

39 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Table : Summary of the 2013 landings and target Fs/harvest ratios, resulting from the Advice Approaches considered by ICES. Target Fs are left justified; harvest ratios are right justified. Where a stock/functional Unit does not have a management plan the landings follow ICES advice. Species Management Plan / MSY approach for 2013 TAC F / Harvest ratio SSB 2014 Rational Cod IIIa-IV-VIId < t t MP Haddock IIIa-IV < t HC t MP Plaice IV < t t MP Sole IV < t t MP Saithe IIIa-IV-VI < t t MP Whiting IV-VIId < t t MP (modified) 1 Nephrops in Botney Gut (FU 5) < t n/a n/a MSY approach Nephrops in Farn Deeps (FU 6) < t 9.0 n/a MSY approach Nephrops Fladen Ground (FU 7) < t 10.3 n/a MSY approach Nephrops in Firth of Forth (FU 8) < t 17.1 n/a MSY approach Nephrops in Moray Firth (FU 9) < 950 t 11.8 n/a MSY approach Nephrops in Noup (FU 10) < 150 t n/a n/a MSY approach Nephrops in Norwegian Deep (FU 32) < 1000 t n/a n/a MSY approach Nephrops of Horn s Reef (FU 33) < t n/a n/a MSY approach Nehrops in Devil s Hole (FU 34) < 600 t n/a n/a MSY approach Nephrops in Other rectangles (NEPOTH) < 819 t* n/a n/a * Value adopted from no change in landings NEPOTH for 2011 minus FU 34 landings 1 Advice used management plan target F rescaled by the amount historical F results had been rescaled on average by a newly introduced assessment model.

40 36 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Table : Métiers consistent with the cod long term management plan and AER database. Gear Mesh Size fleet Métier Gillnet GN1 Pots OTH Static Longlines LL1 Trammel GT1 Pelagic Trawl OTH Pelagic Pelagic Seine OTH >= TR Demersale Seine Dseine 80_89 TR TR3 >= TR1 Otter Otter 80_89 TR Beam Dredge TR3 >=120 BT _89 Beam BT2 Dredge OTH

41 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Table : Final fleet and métier categories used in the mixed fishery analysis. 4, 3AN and 7D refer to the area. fleet metier fleet metier fleet metier BE_Beam<24 BT2.4 EN_Beam BT2.4 NL_Beam<24 BT2.4 OTH OTH OTH BE_Beam>=24 BT1.4 EN_FDF OTH NL_Beam>=40 BT2.4 BT2.4 TR1.4 OTH OTH EN_Otter<24 OTH NL_Beam24-40 BT2.4 BE_Otter OTH TR1.4 OTH TR2.4 TR2.4 NL_Otter OTH DK_Beam BT1.4 EN_Otter>=40 OTH TR1.4 OTH TR1.4 TR2.4 DK_FDF OTH EN_Otter24-40 OTH TR2.7D TR1.3AN TR1.4 NL_Static GN1.4 TR1.4 TR2.4 OTH DK_OTH demhc.3an EN_U10 demhc.4 NO_Otter<40 OTH OTH GN1.4 otter.4 DK_Otter<24 OTH OTH NO_Otter>=40 otter.4 TR1.4 TR2.4 NO_Pelagic pelagic.4 TR2.3AN FR_Nets GT1.4 NO_Static GN1.4 TR2.4 OTH LL1.4 DK_Otter24-40 OTH FR_Otter>=40 OTH OTH_OTH OTH TR1.4 TR1.4 SC_FDF TR1.4 TR2.4 FR_Otter10-40 TR2.4 SC_Otter<24 TR1.4 DK_Pelagic OTH TR2.7D TR2.4 pelagic.4 GE_Beam>=24 BT2.4 SC_Otter>=24 OTH DK_Seine TR1.3AN GE_Otter<24 OTH TR1.4 TR1.4 TR2.4 TR2.4 DK_Static GN1.3AN GE_Otter>=40 OTH SC_Static OTH GN1.4 TR1.4 pots.4 OTH GE_Otter24-40 OTH SC_U10_OTB TR1.4 TR1.4 TR2.4 TR2.4 GE_Static GN1.4

42 38 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Table : Baseline run outputs from the Fcube FLR package. Management plan COD HAD PLE POK SOL WHG 2012 Fbar FmultVsF landings ssb Fbar FmultVsF landings ssb ssb Management plan NEP5 NEP6 NEP7 NEP8 NEP9 NEP10 NEP32 NEP33 NEPOTH Harvest rate FmultVsF landings Harvest rate FmultVsF landings Table : Comparison between baseline run and ICES advice for finfish. Figures for 2012 compare results from the baseline run - that use the same assumptions for F in the intermediate year as the forecasts leading to ICES advice to the ICES intermediate year results. Management plan COD HAD PLE POK SOL WHG 2012 landings Baseline ICES % difference 0.4 % -1.0 % 0.0 % -0.1 % -0.2 % % 2013 landings Baseline ICES % difference 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.4 % -4%

43 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Table : Comparison between baseline run and ICES advice for Nephrops The values for Nephrops FUs that do not receive an absolute ICES abundance estimate are set according to the policy paper category 3 (-25%). No ICES advice values are given for Nephrops in the intermediate year because the baseline run uses values based on recorded landings in the previous year which can vary significantly from the advice for each FU. Management plan NEP5 NEP6 NEP7 NEP8 NEP9 NEP10 NEP32 NEP33 NEP34 NEPOTH 2013 landings Baseline ICES % difference 0.0 % 6.2 % 0.2 % -0.9 % -1.3 % % % % 0.0 % 0.0 % Table : Results of running Fcube scenarios on intermediate year (2012). Comparison of the actual TAC, baseline landings according to the single-stock projection, and potential landings in the various scenarios. COD HAD PLE POK SOL WHG TAC baseline max min cod sq_e Ef_Mgt * Whiting TAC for area IV only NEP10 NEP32 NEP33 NEP34 NEP5 NEP6 NEP7 NEP8 NEP9 NEPOTH TAC baseline max min cod sq_e Ef_Mgt

44 40 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Table Results of Final Fcube runs. year scenario COD HAD PLE POK SOL WHG NEP10 NEP32 NEP33 NEP34 NEP5 NEP6 NEP7 NEP8 NEP9 NEPOTH NEP tot landings 2012 baseline Fbar 2011 baseline baseline baseline FmultVsF baseline cod Ef_Mgt max min sq_e baseline cod Ef_Mgt max min sq_e landings 2012 baseline cod Ef_Mgt max min sq_e baseline cod Ef_Mgt max min sq_e Ld_MgtPlan 2013 cod Ef_Mgt max min sq_e ssb 2012 baseline baseline baseline ssb 2013 cod Ef_Mgt max min sq_e cod Ef_Mgt max min sq_e ssb_mgtplan 2014 cod Ef_Mgt max min sq_e A B C D E F

45 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure Ratio between the sum of landings and discards across fleets used in the MIXFISH analysis and the landings and discards estimated by the WGNSSK stock assessments.

46 42 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Figure Effort by fleet and year for the North Sea demersal fleets, in 000 KWdays. Data for French fleets from 2009 were not available and for Fcube projections French fleet values were assumed the same in 2009 as values from 2008.

47 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure Relative trends in effort (KW Days) by fleet and year for the North Sea demersal fleets. Data for French fleets from 2009 was not available and for Fcube projections French fleet values were assumed the same in 2009 as values from 2008.

48 44 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Figure Effort share (in proportion) by métier for each fleet.

49 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure Landings by fleet, stock and year. Fleets are shown in decreasing groups of total landings and with different scales.

50 46 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Figure (cont). Landings by fleet, stock and year. Fleets are shown in decreasing groups of total landings and with different scales.

51 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure (cont). Landings by fleet, stock and year. Fleets are shown in decreasing groups of total landings and with different scales

52 48 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Figure (cont). Landings by fleet, stock and year. Fleets are shown in decreasing groups of total landings and with different scales

53 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure (cont). Landings by fleet, stock and year. Fleets are shown in decreasing groups of total landings and with different scales.

54 50 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Figure Difference in Fcube outcome from Single Species advice for Fbar ( ), landings ( ) and SSB ( ). For Nephrops the harvest ratio (Fbar proxy) in the intermediate year (2012) may be quite different between the single species and the FCube baseline because the single species forecast uses an average harvest ratio over the last 3 years whereas the Fcube value is based on a share of the 2012 TAC applied to the abundance estimates in 2012 for that FU. This does not have a material impact on single species or FCube TAC year Fbar or TAC advice.

55 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure Intermediate year results. Single-Stock Target F in 2012; Fcube estimates of effort by fleet corresponding to the individual quota share (or partial target F) by stock in Finfish species.

56 52 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Figure Intermediate year results. Single-Stock Target F in 2012; Fcube estimates of effort by fleet corresponding to the individual quota share (or partial target F) by stock in 2012 when applying the five scenarios. Nephrops FUs.

57 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure Intermediate year results. Fcube estimates of effort by fleet implied by the Fcube scenarios in the intermediate year (2012).

58 54 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Figure Intermediate year results. Fcube estimates of potential landings by stock for the Fcube scenarios in the intermediate year (2012). Numbered horizontal lines correspond to the intermediate year assumptions for landings from the single species stock assessments (as reproduced by the baseline run ). Bars below the value of zero show the scale of undershoot (compared to the intermediate year assumptions for landings from the single species stock assessments) in cases where landings are predicted to be lower when applying the scenario.

59 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure Intermediate year results. Total estimated catches by stock and Fcube scenario in Bars represent from bottom to top: potential landings (as estimated from previous ratios of landings vs. discards) up to the actual 2012 TAC; potential landings (as estimated from previous ratios of landings vs. discards) above the actual 2012 TAC; Discards; Unallocated removals (maintained constant across scenarios). Numbered columns relate to species.

60 56 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Figure TAC year results (2013). Fcube estimates of potential landings by stock after two successive years of applying the Fcube scenarios. Horizontal lines correspond to the TAC set by the single stock advice. Bars below the value of zero show the scale of undershoot (compared to the single species TAC) in cases where landings are predicted to be lower when applying the scenario.

61 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure TAC year results (2013). Total estimated catches by stock and Fcube scenario in Bars represent from bottom to top: potential landings (as estimated from previous ratios of landings vs. discards) up to the advised single stock 2013 TAC; potential landings (as estimated from previous ratios of landings vs. discards) above the advised single stock 2013 TAC; discards; unallocated removals (maintained constant across scenarios).

62 58 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT 2012 Figure Estimates of potential SSB at the start of 2014 by stock after applying the mixed fisheries scenarios, expressed as a ratio to the single species advice forecast. Horizontal line corresponds to the SSB resulting from the single stock advice (at the start of 2014). Nephrops are not included as abundance is not forecasted from the mixed fisheries model.

63 ICES WGMIXFISH REPORT Figure TAC year results (2013). Fcube estimates of effort by fleet corresponding to the individual quota share (or partial target F) by stock in 2013 (baseline run). Finfish species.

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.a, Functional Unit 7 (northern North Sea, Fladen Ground)

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.a, Functional Unit 7 (northern North Sea, Fladen Ground) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 11 November 2016 6.3.27 (update) Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.a, Functional Unit 7 (northern

More information

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea IV (North Sea) and Division IIIa (Skagerrak)

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea IV (North Sea) and Division IIIa (Skagerrak) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Ecoregions Published 30 June 2015 6.3.31 Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea IV (North Sea) and Division

More information

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.a, Functional Unit 32 (northern North Sea, Norway Deep)

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.a, Functional Unit 32 (northern North Sea, Norway Deep) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 29 June 2018 Version 2: 14 November 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4439 Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)

More information

Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Subarea 4 and Division 7.d (North Sea and eastern English Channel)

Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Subarea 4 and Division 7.d (North Sea and eastern English Channel) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Ecoregions Published 30 June 2016 Version 2: 11 November 2016 6.3.56 Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Subarea

More information

ICES advice on fishing opportunities

ICES advice on fishing opportunities ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 29 June 2018 Version 2: 3 July 2018 Version 3: 14 November 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4458 Sole

More information

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.b, Functional Unit 6 (central North Sea, Farn Deeps)

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.b, Functional Unit 6 (central North Sea, Farn Deeps) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 14 November 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4619 Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.b,

More information

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.b, Functional Unit 6 (central North Sea, Farn Deeps)

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.b, Functional Unit 6 (central North Sea, Farn Deeps) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 14 November 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3524 Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.b, Functional

More information

ICES WGMIXFISH-ADVICE REPORT Report of the Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice (WGMIXFISH-ADVICE)

ICES WGMIXFISH-ADVICE REPORT Report of the Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice (WGMIXFISH-ADVICE) ICES WGMIXFISH-ADVICE REPORT 2017 ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ICES CM 2017/ACOM:18 REF. ACOM Report of the Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice (WGMIXFISH-ADVICE) 22 26 May 2017 Copenhagen, Denmark International

More information

Please note: The present advice replaces the advice given in June 2017 for catches in 2018.

Please note: The present advice replaces the advice given in June 2017 for catches in 2018. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 14 November 2017 Version 2: 6 December 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3528 Sole (Solea solea) in Subarea 4 (North

More information

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Published 30 June 2016

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Published 30 June 2016 Celtic Seas Ecoregion Published 30 June 2016 5.2.7.2 Mixed-fisheries advice for divisions 7.b c and 7.e k (Celtic Sea) Summary ICES cannot recommend specific mixed-fisheries catch opportunities as no mixed-fisheries

More information

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.a, Functional Unit 10 (northern North Sea, Noup)

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 4.a, Functional Unit 10 (northern North Sea, Noup) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities,, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion and Greater North Sea Ecoregions Published 30 June 2016 Version 2: 11 November 2016 6.3.25 Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in

More information

ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches in 2019 should be no more than tonnes.

ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches in 2019 should be no more than tonnes. Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Greater North Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions Published 29 June 2018 Version 2: 4 September 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4487

More information

Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in divisions 7.b k (southern Celtic Seas and English Channel)

Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in divisions 7.b k (southern Celtic Seas and English Channel) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Greater North Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions Published 29 June 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4453 Haddock (Melanogrammus

More information

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea 4 (North Sea) and Subdivision 20 (Skagerrak)

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea 4 (North Sea) and Subdivision 20 (Skagerrak) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 14 November 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4613 Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea 4 (North

More information

Advice June 2014

Advice June 2014 5.3.23 Advice June 2014 ECOREGION STOCK Celtic Sea and West of Scotland Plaice in Division VIIa (Irish Sea) Advice for 2015 Based on ICES approach to data-limited stocks, ICES advises that catches should

More information

Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 4 and 6, and in Division 3.a (North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat)

Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 4 and 6, and in Division 3.a (North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Faroes, and Greater North Sea Ecoregions Published 30 June 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3206 Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 4

More information

Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Division 6.a (West of Scotland)

Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Division 6.a (West of Scotland) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Published 30 June 2016 5.3.65 Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Division 6.a (West of Scotland) ICES stock advice ICES advises

More information

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.e (western English Channel) Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea ecoregions Published 30 June 2016 Version 2: 15 May 2017 5.3.51 Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.e (western English Channel) ICES stock advice ICES advises

More information

6.3.4 Cod (Gadus morhua) in Subarea IV and Divisions VIId and IIIa West (North Sea, Eastern English Channel, Skagerrak)

6.3.4 Cod (Gadus morhua) in Subarea IV and Divisions VIId and IIIa West (North Sea, Eastern English Channel, Skagerrak) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Ecoregions Published 30 June 2015 6.3.4 Cod (Gadus morhua) in Subarea IV and Divisions VIId and IIIa West (North

More information

Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in divisions 7.b c and 7.e k (southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel)

Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in divisions 7.b c and 7.e k (southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Greater North Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions Published 30 June 2017 Version 2: 07 July 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3269

More information

EU request to ICES on in-year advice on haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea)

EU request to ICES on in-year advice on haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea) ICES Special Request Advice Celtic Seas Ecoregion Published 1 March 2017 EU request to ICES on in-year advice on haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea) Advice summary Please note:

More information

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 3.a, functional units 3 and 4 (Skagerrak and Kattegat)

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 3.a, functional units 3 and 4 (Skagerrak and Kattegat) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 29 June 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4433 Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 3.a, functional

More information

Predicted catch for 2016, per stock and scenario overshoot (hatched) and undershoot (below zero)

Predicted catch for 2016, per stock and scenario overshoot (hatched) and undershoot (below zero) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Published 30 June 2015 5.2.2.1 Mixed-fisheries advice for Divisions VIIb,c,e k (Celtic Sea) Scenarios for 2016 Mixed-fisheries

More information

6.4 Stock summaries Advice June 2012

6.4 Stock summaries Advice June 2012 6.4 Stock summaries 6.4.1 Advice June 2012 ECOREGION STOCK North Sea Cod in Division IIIa East (Kattegat) Advice for 2013 ICES advises on the basis of precautionary considerations that there should be

More information

Mixed-fisheries advice for divisions 7.b c and 7.e k (Celtic Sea) Summary Figure 1

Mixed-fisheries advice for divisions 7.b c and 7.e k (Celtic Sea) Summary Figure 1 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Published 30 June 2017 mix-cs Version 2: 05 July 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3158 Mixed-fisheries advice for divisions 7.b

More information

Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 20 24, spring spawners (Skagerrak, Kattegat, and western Baltic)

Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 20 24, spring spawners (Skagerrak, Kattegat, and western Baltic) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Baltic Sea and Greater North Sea Ecoregions Published 31 May 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4390 Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions

More information

ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches in 2019 should be no more than tonnes.

ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches in 2019 should be no more than tonnes. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater Northern Sea, Celtic Seas, and Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast Published 29 June 2018 ecoregions https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4463b

More information

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea 4 (North Sea) and Subdivision 20 (Skagerrak)

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea 4 (North Sea) and Subdivision 20 (Skagerrak) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 14 November 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3529 Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea 4 (North Sea) and Subdivision

More information

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Division 3.a (Skagerrak and Kattegat)

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Division 3.a (Skagerrak and Kattegat) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 07 April 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3256 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Division 3.a (Skagerrak and Kattegat)

More information

Cod (Gadus morhua) in subdivisions 24 32, eastern Baltic stock (eastern Baltic Sea) *

Cod (Gadus morhua) in subdivisions 24 32, eastern Baltic stock (eastern Baltic Sea) * ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Baltic Sea Ecoregion Published 31 May 2017 Version 2: 1 June 2017 Version 3: 8 June 2017 Version 4: 8 March 2018 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3096 Cod

More information

Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic)

Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Arctic Ocean, Barents Sea, Faroes, Greenland Sea, Published 13 June 2018 Icelandic Waters, and Norwegian Sea ecoregions https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4412

More information

ICES advice on fishing opportunities. ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, total removals in 2018 should be no more than 880 tonnes.

ICES advice on fishing opportunities. ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, total removals in 2018 should be no more than 880 tonnes. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea ecoregions bss.27.4bc7ad-h Published 29 June 2018 Version 2: 2 July 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4472

More information

Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d, autumn spawners (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, eastern English Channel)

Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d, autumn spawners (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, eastern English Channel) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 31 May 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4387 Herring (Clupea harengus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a

More information

White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 8.c and 9.a (Cantabrian Sea and Atlantic Iberian waters)

White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 8.c and 9.a (Cantabrian Sea and Atlantic Iberian waters) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast Ecoregion Published 29 June 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4459 White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius)

More information

Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions IIIa, IVa, and IVb, SA 3 (Skagerrak and Kattegat, North and Central North Sea)

Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions IIIa, IVa, and IVb, SA 3 (Skagerrak and Kattegat, North and Central North Sea) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 23 February 2015 6.3.39 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions IIIa, IVa, and IVb, SA 3 (Skagerrak and Kattegat,

More information

Advice June Sole in Division IIIa and Subdivisions (Skagerrak, Kattegat, and the Belts)

Advice June Sole in Division IIIa and Subdivisions (Skagerrak, Kattegat, and the Belts) 6.3.26 Advice June 2014 ECOREGION STOCK North Sea Sole in Division IIIa and Subdivisions 22 24 (Skagerrak, Kattegat, and the Belts) Advice for 2015 ICES advises on the basis of the MSY approach that catches

More information

(update) Advice November 2014

(update) Advice November 2014 6.3.15 (update) Advice November 2014 ECOREGION STOCK North Sea Nephrops in Subarea IV (North Sea) (updated) Introduction Nephrops are limited to a muddy habitat. This means that the distribution of suitable

More information

Advice June 2013 Version 2,

Advice June 2013 Version 2, 5..37 Advice June 3 Version, 5--3 ECOREGION STOCK Celtic Sea and West of Scotland Sole in Divisions VIIf,g (Celtic Sea) Advice for ICES advises on the basis of the MSY approach that catches in should be

More information

Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 20 24, spring spawners (Skagerrak, Kattegat, and western Baltic)

Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 20 24, spring spawners (Skagerrak, Kattegat, and western Baltic) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Baltic Sea and Greater North Sea Ecoregions Published 31 May 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3126 Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 20 24, spring

More information

Evaluation of fisheries dependent information in European waters 5-9 September 2016, Gavirate

Evaluation of fisheries dependent information in European waters 5-9 September 2016, Gavirate STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG Evaluation of fisheries dependent information in European waters 5-9 September 2016, Gavirate DG Mare focal person: Eckehard Reussner Chair: Steven Holmes Background The

More information

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea ecoregions Published 30 June 2016

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea ecoregions Published 30 June 2016 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea ecoregions Published 30 June 2016 5.3.57 Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in divisions 4.b c, 7.a, and 7.d h (central

More information

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea)

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Baltic Sea Ecoregion Published 31 May 2016 8.3.18 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in subdivisions 22 32 (Baltic Sea) ICES stock advice ICES advises that

More information

Advice October 2014

Advice October 2014 5.3.21.3 Advice October 2014 ECOREGION Celtic Sea and West of Scotland STOCK Nephrops on Porcupine Bank (FU 16) Advice for 2015 ICES advises on the basis of the MSY approach that catches from FU 16 in

More information

Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 5, 6, 12, and 14 (Iceland and Faroes grounds, West of Scotland, North of Azores, East of Greenland)

Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 5, 6, 12, and 14 (Iceland and Faroes grounds, West of Scotland, North of Azores, East of Greenland) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Arctic Ocean, Celtic Seas, Faroes, Greenland Sea, Icelandic Waters, Published 13 June 2017 Norwegian Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic Ecoregions

More information

Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic

Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Northeast Atlantic Published 11 October 2016 9.3.17 Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic ICES stock advice ICES advises that when

More information

Report of the Working Group on Widely Distributed

Report of the Working Group on Widely Distributed ICES WGWIDE REPORT 2017 ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ICES CM 2017/ACOM:23 Report of the Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks (WGWIDE) 30 August -5 September 2017 ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark

More information

9.4.5 Advice September Widely distributed and migratory stocks Herring in the Northeast Atlantic (Norwegian spring-spawning herring)

9.4.5 Advice September Widely distributed and migratory stocks Herring in the Northeast Atlantic (Norwegian spring-spawning herring) 9.4.5 Advice September 212 ECOREGION STOCK Widely distributed and migratory stocks Herring in the Northeast Atlantic (Norwegian spring-spawning herring) Advice for 213 ICES advises on the basis of the

More information

Advice June, revised September Herring in Division IIIa and Subdivisions (Western Baltic spring spawners)

Advice June, revised September Herring in Division IIIa and Subdivisions (Western Baltic spring spawners) 6.4.15 Advice June, revised September 21 ECOREGION STOCK North Sea and Baltic Herring in Division IIIa and Subdivisions 22 24 (Western Baltic spring spawners) Advice for 211 Management Objective (s) Catches

More information

Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in Division 3.a (Skagerrak and Kattegat)

Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in Division 3.a (Skagerrak and Kattegat) Greater North Sea ecoregion Published 3 June 2016 9.3.28 Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in Division 3.a (Skagerrak and Kattegat) ICES stock advice ICES advises that when the precautionary

More information

BSAC recommendations for the fishery in the Baltic Sea in 2018

BSAC recommendations for the fishery in the Baltic Sea in 2018 Copenhagen 7 th July 2017 BSAC recommendations for the fishery in the Baltic Sea in 2018 The BSAC recommends setting the catch levels for the Baltic stocks in 2018 at the values indicated in the table

More information

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in divisions 8.a b, FUs (Bay of Biscay North and Central)

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in divisions 8.a b, FUs (Bay of Biscay North and Central) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast Ecoregion Published 01 December 2016 7.3.30 Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in divisions 8.a b, FUs 23 24

More information

Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) in subareas 1 9, 12, and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)

Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) in subareas 1 9, 12, and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Ecoregions of the Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean Published 28 September 2018 nea https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4536 Blue whiting (Micromesistius

More information

Striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 7.d and 3.a (North Sea, eastern English Channel, Skagerrak and Kattegat)

Striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 7.d and 3.a (North Sea, eastern English Channel, Skagerrak and Kattegat) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 30 June 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3162 Striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus) in Subarea 4 and divisions

More information

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea 4 (North Sea)

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea 4 (North Sea) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 30 June 2016 6.3.51 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea 4 (North Sea) ICES stock advice ICES provides catch

More information

3.3.2 Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic)

3.3.2 Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions Published 10 June 2016 3.3.2 Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) ICES stock advice

More information

Fishing mortality in relation to highest yield. Fishing mortality in relation to agreed target

Fishing mortality in relation to highest yield. Fishing mortality in relation to agreed target 3.4 Stock summaries 3.4. Northeast Arctic cod State of the stock Spawning biomass in relation to precautionary limits Full reproductive capacity Fishing mortality in relation to precautionary limits/management

More information

Advice June 2012

Advice June 2012 5.4.29 Advice June 2012 ECOREGION STOCK Celtic Sea and West of Scotland + North Sea Anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa) in Division IIIa, and Subareas IV and VI Advice for 2013 Based on the

More information

Advice October 2014

Advice October 2014 5.3.20 Advice October 2014 ECOREGION STOCK Celtic Sea and West of Scotland Nephrops in Division VIa Introduction Nephrops are limited to a muddy habitat. This means that the distribution of suitable sediment

More information

Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions and 32 (central Baltic Sea, excluding Gulf of Riga)

Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions and 32 (central Baltic Sea, excluding Gulf of Riga) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Baltic Sea Ecoregion Published 31 May 2016 8.3.14 Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 25 29 and 32 (central Baltic Sea, excluding Gulf of Riga)

More information

Black-bellied anglerfish (Lophius budegassa) in divisions 7.b k, 8.a b, and 8.d (west and southwest of Ireland, Bay of Biscay)

Black-bellied anglerfish (Lophius budegassa) in divisions 7.b k, 8.a b, and 8.d (west and southwest of Ireland, Bay of Biscay) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater Northern Sea, Celtic Seas, and Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast Ecoregions Published 29 June 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4474 Black-bellied

More information

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea, excluding the Sound and Belt Seas)

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea, excluding the Sound and Belt Seas) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Baltic Sea Ecoregion Published 31 May 2016 Version 2, 22 August 2016 8.3.16 Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in subdivisions 24 32 (Baltic Sea, excluding

More information

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea Ecoregions Published 24 October 2017

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea Ecoregions Published 24 October 2017 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea Ecoregions Published 24 October 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3334 Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in divisions 4.b

More information

Baltic Stock Advice. 14 May John Simmonds ICES ACOM Vice Chair

Baltic Stock Advice. 14 May John Simmonds ICES ACOM Vice Chair Baltic Stock Advice 14 May 2013 John Simmonds ICES ACOM Vice Chair Overview Basis of Stock Status Stocks Cod Flatfish (plaice dab, flounder, brill and turbot) Pelagics (herring and sprat) Salmon and trout

More information

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION. Consultation on Fishing Opportunities for 2011

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION. Consultation on Fishing Opportunities for 2011 EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 17.5.2010 COM(2010)241 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION Consultation on Fishing Opportunities for 2011 EN EN COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION Consultation

More information

Advice October 2013

Advice October 2013 5.4.21.3 Advice October 213 ECOREGION Celtic Sea and West of Scotland STOCK Nephrops on Porcupine Bank (FU 16) Advice for 214 ICES advises on the basis of the MSY approach that catches from FU 16 in 214

More information

Advice June Harvested sustainably. Full reproductive capacity. Above target. Recruitment in millions. Fpa FMSY.

Advice June Harvested sustainably. Full reproductive capacity. Above target. Recruitment in millions. Fpa FMSY. 6.4.1 Advice June 212 ECOREGION STOCK North Sea Sole in Subarea IV (North Sea) Advice for 213 ICES advises on the basis of the EU management plan (Council Regulation No. 676/27) that landings in 213 should

More information

Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic)

Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Arctic Ocean, Barents Sea, Faroes, Greenland Sea, Published 28 September 2018 Icelandic Waters, and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.4538

More information

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea 4 (North Sea)

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea 4 (North Sea) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 12 April 2018 http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4257 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea 4 (North Sea) ICES

More information

ICES WGCSE REPORT

ICES WGCSE REPORT ICES WGCSE REPORT 2009 291 6 Irish Sea 6.1 Area overview Description of fisheries Fishing effort and vessel numbers within the Irish Sea have declined in recent years by around 28% and 15% respectively

More information

Witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, eastern English Channel)

Witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, eastern English Channel) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 30 June 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3051 Witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a

More information

Advice June 2012

Advice June 2012 2.4.1 Advice June 212 ECOREGION STOCK Iceland and East Greenland Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in Subareas V, XII, and XIV and NAFO Subareas 1+2 (Deep pelagic stock > 5 m) Advice for 213 The advice

More information

EcoQO on spawning stock biomass of commercial fish species 1

EcoQO on spawning stock biomass of commercial fish species 1 EcoQO on spawning stock biomass of commercial fish species 1 Background Spawning stock biomass of commercial fish species is one of the Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) in the EcoQO system of the

More information

Not to be cited without prior reference to authors

Not to be cited without prior reference to authors ICES CM 2012/K:09 Not to be cited without prior reference to authors Mixed fisheries forecasts lessons learned from their initial application to North Sea fisheries. Steven J. Holmes 1, Clara Ulrich 2

More information

Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Division 9.a (Atlantic Iberian waters)

Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Division 9.a (Atlantic Iberian waters) Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast Ecoregion Published 13 July 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4496 Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Division 9.a (Atlantic Iberian waters) ICES advice on

More information

Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) in subareas 1 9, 12, and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)

Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) in subareas 1 9, 12, and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Ecoregions of the Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean Published 29 September 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3030 Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou)

More information

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 30 September 2015

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 30 September 2015 Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 30 September 2015 6.3.13 Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Divisions IIIa, IVb,c, and VIId (Skagerrak and Kattegat, Southern and Central North Sea, Eastern English

More information

Overview 10/8/2015. October Pelagic Advice Pelagic AC 7 October 2015

Overview 10/8/2015. October Pelagic Advice Pelagic AC 7 October 2015 October Pelagic Advice Pelagic AC 7 October 2015 John Simmonds ICES ACOM Vice Chair Overview WG 1 Blue whiting NSS herring North Sea horse makerel WG 2 Stocks Northeast Atlantic mackerel Western horse

More information

Advice May Herring in Subdivisions and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring)

Advice May Herring in Subdivisions and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring) 8.3.10 Advice May 2014 ECOREGION STOCK Baltic Sea Herring in Subdivisions 25 29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring) Advice for 2015 ICES advises on the basis of the MSY approach that catches in 2015

More information

Mixed fisheries forecasts lessons learned from their initial application to North Sea fisheries

Mixed fisheries forecasts lessons learned from their initial application to North Sea fisheries Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Dec 20, 2017 Mixed fisheries forecasts lessons learned from their initial application to North Sea fisheries Holmes, Steven J.; Ulrich, Clara; Reeves, Stuart A. Publication

More information

5.3.2 White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 7.b k, 8.a b, and 8.d (southern Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay)

5.3.2 White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 7.b k, 8.a b, and 8.d (southern Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay) Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast and Celtic Seas ecoregions Version 2; 22 August 2016 5.3.2 White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 7.b k, 8.a b, and 8.d (southern Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay)

More information

STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 18-09

STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 18-09 STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 18-09 on a fishing effort regime for demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean Sea 18-22 June 2018, Arona, Italy DG MARE focal point: Amanda Perez Perera Chair: Clara

More information

ICES advice on fishing opportunities

ICES advice on fishing opportunities ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean Published 22 October 2018 Version 2: 25 October 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4568 Herring (Clupea harengus)

More information

Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions 4a and 4b, SA 4 (North and Central North Sea)

Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions 4a and 4b, SA 4 (North and Central North Sea) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 22 February 2016 6.3.40 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions 4a and 4b, SA 4 (North and Central North Sea)

More information

ICES advice for North western waters. Martin Pastoors (vice-chair of ICES Advisory Committee

ICES advice for North western waters. Martin Pastoors (vice-chair of ICES Advisory Committee ICES advice for 2009 North western waters Presented at: North Western RAC, Madrid, 3-4 July 2008 Martin Pastoors (vice-chair of ICES Advisory Committee Sustainable exploitation is the key to fisheries

More information

3.4 Stock Summaries Advice June 2011

3.4 Stock Summaries Advice June 2011 3.4 Stock Summaries 3.4.1 Advice June 211 ECOREGION STOCK Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod) Advice for 212 ICES advises on the basis of the Joint Russian Norwegian

More information

ICES WGNSSK REPORT

ICES WGNSSK REPORT ICES WGNSSK REPORT 2017 17 2 Overview 2.1 Introduction The demersal fisheries in the North Sea can be categorised as a) human consumption fisheries, and b) industrial fisheries which land the majority

More information

6.3.8 Advice May 2014 Version 2, ECOREGION North Sea STOCK Herring in Division IIIa and Subdivisions (western Baltic spring spawners)

6.3.8 Advice May 2014 Version 2, ECOREGION North Sea STOCK Herring in Division IIIa and Subdivisions (western Baltic spring spawners) 6.3.8 Advice May 2014 Version 2, 04-07-2014 ECOREGION North Sea STOCK Herring in Division IIIa and Subdivisions 22 24 (western Baltic spring spawners) Advice for 2015 ICES advises on the basis of the MSY

More information

ICES approach for Data Limited Stocks (progress after June 2012) Mixed fisheries and Multispecies approaches

ICES approach for Data Limited Stocks (progress after June 2012) Mixed fisheries and Multispecies approaches ICES approach for Data Limited Stocks (progress after June 2012) Mixed fisheries and Multispecies approaches Carmen Fernández, ACOM vice-chair North Western Waters RAC (July 23, 2013, Dublin) Data limited

More information

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 23 February 2015

ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 23 February 2015 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 23 February 2015 6.3.37 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Division IVa, SA 5 (Northern North Sea, Viking and Bergen

More information

3.4.3 Advice June Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod)

3.4.3 Advice June Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod) 3.4.3 Advice June 2013 ECOREGION STOCK Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod) Advice for 2014 ICES advises on the basis of the Norwegian rebuilding plan,

More information

Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1 8 and 14, and in Division 9.a (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)

Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1 8 and 14, and in Division 9.a (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Ecoregions in the Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean Published 29 September 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3023 Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas

More information

Report of the ICES Advisory Committee 2012

Report of the ICES Advisory Committee 2012 ICES ADVICE 212 AVIS DU CIEM Books 1-1 Report of the ICES Advisory Committee 212 Book 4 The Faroe Plateau Ecosystem International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l Exploration

More information

FIS012A - Quota management and choke species under the landing obligation

FIS012A - Quota management and choke species under the landing obligation FIS012A - Quota management and choke species under the landing obligation A REPORT COMMISSIONED BY FIS AND PREPARED BY CEFAS Published by: Fisheries Innovation Scotland (FIS) This report is available at:

More information

Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in divisions 7.d e (English Channel)

Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in divisions 7.d e (English Channel) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Sea Ecoregion Published 13 July 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4501. Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in divisions 7.d e (English Channel)

More information

Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in divisions 8.a b (northern and central Bay of Biscay)

Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in divisions 8.a b (northern and central Bay of Biscay) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast Ecoregion Published July 13 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4502 Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in divisions

More information

6.4.2 Advice June, revised September Cod in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel), and IIIa West (Skagerrak).

6.4.2 Advice June, revised September Cod in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel), and IIIa West (Skagerrak). 6.4.2 Advice June, revised September 2010 ECOREGION STOCK North Sea Cod in Subarea IV (North Sea), Division VIId (Eastern Channel), and IIIa West (Skagerrak) Advice summary for 2011 Management Objective

More information

Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions 3a, 4a, and 4b, SA 3 (Skagerrak and Kattegat, North and Central North Sea)

Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions 3a, 4a, and 4b, SA 3 (Skagerrak and Kattegat, North and Central North Sea) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 22 February 2016 6.3.39 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions 3a, 4a, and 4b, SA 3 (Skagerrak and Kattegat,

More information

Boarfish (Capros aper) in subareas 6 8 (Celtic Seas, English Channel, and Bay of Biscay)

Boarfish (Capros aper) in subareas 6 8 (Celtic Seas, English Channel, and Bay of Biscay) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast, Celtic Seas, Published 29 September 2017 Greater North Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic Ecoregions DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3025

More information

4.9.5 Norwegian spring-spawning herring

4.9.5 Norwegian spring-spawning herring 4.9.5 Norwegian springspawning herring State of the stock Spawning biomass in relation to precautionary limits Acceptable Fishing mortality in relation to precautionary limits Acceptable Fishing mortality

More information

STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 16-13

STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 16-13 STECF EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 16-13 Stock assessments in the Mediterranean Sea, Part I 26 30 September 2016, Barza di Ispra, Italy DG MARE focal persons: Xavier Vazquez & Amanda Perez Chair: John Simmonds

More information